The Instant Impact of Precon Dev. V. U.S. Army Corp of Eng'rs (4th Cir. Jan. 25, 2011) on the Controlling Test for Finding Jurisdiction Under the Clean Water Act

ExecSense, April 2011, Minutes: 60

“The Instant Impact of Precon Dev. V. U.S. Army Corp of Eng’rs (4th Cir. Jan. 25, 2011) on the Controlling Test for Finding Jurisdiction Under the Clean Water Act” is a time efficient way to be in-the-know on the most up to date facts and ramifications of this case and take proactive steps on behalf of current and prospective clients it could impact the most. Take the 60 minutes to view this webinar (on your computer, mobile phone, iPad, Kindle or printed out) to make sure you have answers ready to key questions you are sure to be asked on the immediate ramifications of this decision by colleagues, clients and other professionals with whom you discuss the case, as the Fourth Circuit has now joined several other Circuits in embracing Justice Anthony Kennedy’s “significant nexus test” as the controlling test for finding jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act over wetlands which are not adjacent to navigable waterways.

Upon ordering, ExecSense will email you a link to download the webinar files for viewing on your computer, mobile phone, iPod, iPad, Kindle or printed out. The downloaded files will include the PowerPoint presentation, audio narration and jpeg images of the slides (for watching on your mobile media device). Take advantage of your next commute, flight, business trip, lunch, or free hour in your schedule to view this webinar.

The webinar is led by an expert on the ramifications of this case and the controlling test for finding jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act, Neal McAliley, partner at White & Case LLP, and focuses on:
- Everything you need to know in 60 minutes about the impact of the Fourth Circuit’s decision on the controlling test for finding jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act
- Perspective on the impact of the Fourth Circuit’s decision on the use of the “significant nexus test” as the controlling test for finding jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act over wetlands which are not adjacent to navigable waterways, what level of evidence will be required to establish a significant nexus, whether it will be adequate to rely mainly on qualitative evidence without any laboratory analysis or measurements, or whether a much more rigorous assessment will be required, whether other Circuits will follow the Fourth Circuit’s heightened evidentiary burden for showing a significant nexus, and more
- The 10 questions being asked the most by environmental lawyers and their clients with respect to how this decision will impact them and what proactive steps they should be taking right now
- Case studies of what other environmental lawyers are doing for their clients, now and in the future, based on this ruling

Praise for ExecSense Webinars:
"An expeditious way to obtain authoritative current information and ideas on a subject of interest." – David Kera, Partner, Oblon Spivak
"Just in time information to improve knowledge of current topics and trends.” – Thomas M. Armstrong, Attorney, Reid and Riege
“Well organized, well articulated, and easy to follow. The ExecSense webinar I attended was the best virtual learning experience I've had in quite some time.” – Brian K. Moore, HR Communications, Humana

Customers who bought this item also bought

• The Instant Impact of Chloe v. Queen Bee of Beverly Hills, LLC (2nd Cir. Aug. 5, 2010) on Personal Jurisdiction and Future Trademark Infringement Litigation Against Internet Counterfeiters
• The Instant Impact of North Carolina v. Tennessee Valley Authority (4th Cir. July 26, 2010) on the Use of Public Nuisance Suits to Regulate Air Emissions
• What Labor & Employment Lawyers Need to Know About Ames v. Home Depot (7th Cir. Jan. 6, 2011)
• The Instant Impact of Sabinsa Corp. v. Creative Compounds, LLC (3rd Cir. July 9, 2010) on "Likelihood of Confusion" Analysis in Trademark Infringement Litigation
• The Instant Impact of GSI Commerce Solutions Inc. v. BabyCenter LLC (2nd Cir. Aug. 18, 2010) on the Duty of Loyalty and Representation of Parties Adverse to a Firm Client's Affiliate/Subsidiary
• The Instant Impact of Hatmaker v. Memorial Med. Ctr. on the Level of Protection Applicable to an Employee's "Participation" in a Pre-EEOC Internal Harassment Investigation for Purposes of Title VII's Anti-Retaliation Section
• The Instant Impact of PSKS, Inc. v. Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. (5th Cir. Aug. 17, 2010) on Analysis of Vertical Price Fixing Agreements Under the Rule of Reason Framework
• The Instant Impact of TMW Enterprises, Inc. v. Fed. Ins. Co. (6th Cir. Aug. 25, 2010) on the Intersection of Exclusions and “Ensuing Loss” Coverage Provisions in All-Risk Policies
• What Litigators Need to Know About Recent CAFA Litigation
• The Instant Impact of Polycarpe v. E&S Landscaping, Inc. (11th Cir. Aug. 31, 2010) on Future FLSA Litigation Against Small Businesses