- Climate Litigation Database
- /
- Search
- /
- United States
- /
- California
- /
- Native Village of Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp.
Native Village of Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp.
Geography
Year
2008
Document Type
Litigation
Part of
About this case
Filing year
2008
Status
Rehearing en banc denied.
Geography
Docket number
09-17490
Court/admin entity
United States → United States Federal Courts → United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (9th Cir.)
Case category
Adaptation (US) → Actions seeking money damages for losses (US)Common Law Claims (US)
Principal law
United States → Federal Common Law—NuisanceUnited States → State Law—Nuisance
At issue
Action by native Alaskans seeking damages from oil and power companies for impacts of climate change on their village.
Topics
, ,
Documents
Filing Date
Document
Type
Topics
Beta
11/27/2012
Rehearing en banc denied.
The Ninth Circuit denied a petition for a rehearing en banc concerning its decision affirming dismissal of the Inupiat Native Alaskans' lawsuit.
Decision
09/21/2012
Opinion issued affirming dismissal.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit by Inupiat Native Alaskans seeking to recover money damages from a number of energy companies for greenhouse gas emissions from the companies’ products that plaintiffs alleged caused eroded sea ice where the plaintiffs' village is located. The appeals court held that plaintiffs could not sue under a theory of public nuisance given that it had been displaced by the Clean Air Act.
Decision
11/04/2011
Supplemental brief filed by defendants-appellees regarding American Electric Power v. Connecticut.
Brief
11/04/2011
Supplemental brief on AEP v. Connecticut filed by appellants.
Brief
08/31/2011
Motion to lift stay of appellate proceedings granted and request for supplemental briefing referred to merits panel.
Decision
07/05/2011
Response filed by certain appellees to plaintiffs' motion to lift stay and for supplemental briefing.
Response
07/05/2011
Response filed by defendant-appellee Peabody Energy Corporation to appellants' motion to lift stay and allow supplemental briefing.
Response
06/24/2011
Motion filed by plaintiffs-appellants to lift stay of proceedings and allow supplemental briefing.
Motion
02/23/2011
Defendants-appellees' motion to defer calendaring of oral argument granted in part.
The Ninth Circuit construed the defendant-appellees’ motion to defer calendaring of oral argument as a motion for a stay of appellate proceedings pending the Supreme Court's decision in American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut and granted the motion in part by staying the case until June 15, 2011. The Ninth Circuit directed the appellees to file a status report by June 15. After the appellees filed their status report, the Ninth Circuit extended the stay until July 15, 2011.
Decision
02/14/2011
Reply filed to plaintiffs' opposition to motion to defer calendaring of oral argument pending decision of U.S. Supreme Court in American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut.
Reply
02/04/2011
Opposition filed by plaintiffs-appellants to motion to calendaring of oral argument pending decision of U.S. Supreme Court in American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut.
Opposition
01/24/2011
Motion filed by defendants-appellees to defer calendaring of oral argument pending decision of U.S. Supreme Court in American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut.
Motion
07/07/2010
Motion filed by Congressman Lamar Smith and Congressman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. for leave to file brief as amici curiae in support of defendants-appellees and affirmance.
Amicus Motion/Brief
07/07/2010
Motion filed by Association of International Automobile Manufacturers for leave to file brief as amicus curiae in support of defendants-appellees.
Amicus Motion/Brief
07/07/2010
Brief filed by amici curiae National Association of Manufacturers et al. in support of defendants-appellees.
Amicus Motion/Brief
07/07/2010
Motion filed by amicus curiae NATSO, Inc. for leave to file a brief in support of defendants-appellees.
Amicus Motion/Brief
07/07/2010
Motion filed by amicus curiae Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America for leave to file brief in support of defendants-appellees.
Amicus Motion/Brief
07/07/2010
Brief filed by amicus curiae Washington Legal Foundation in support of defendants-appellees.
Amicus Motion/Brief
07/06/2010
Motion filed by Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence for leave to file brief as amicus curiae in support of defendants-appellees.
Amicus Motion/Brief
07/06/2010
Brief filed by amicus curiae Pacific Legal Foundation in support of defendants-appellees.
Amicus Motion/Brief
07/06/2010
Motion filed by amici curiae American Chemistry Council et al. for leave to file a brief supporting by defendants-appellees.
Amicus Motion/Brief
06/30/2010
Brief filed by defendants-appellees American Electric Power Co., Inc. et al.
Brief
06/30/2010
Response brief filed by defendant-appellee Peabody Energy Corporation.
Brief
06/30/2010
Answering brief filed by defendants-appellees Shell Oil Company et al.
Brief
03/18/2010
Brief filed for solar industry amici curiae in support of plaintiffs-appellants.
Amicus Motion/Brief
03/17/2010
Brief filed by amicus curiae law professors in support of plaintiffs-appellants.
Amicus Motion/Brief
03/10/2010
Appellants filed opening brief and consented-to motion for permission to file overlength brief.
Brief
Summary
Action by native Alaskans seeking damages from oil and power companies for impacts of climate change on their village.
Topics mentioned most in this case Beta
See how often topics get mentioned in this case and view specific passages of text highlighted in each document. Accuracy is not 100%. Learn more
Group
Topics
Target
Policy instrument
Risk
Impacted group
Just transition
Renewable energy
Fossil fuel
Greenhouse gas
Economic sector
Adaptation/resilience
Finance