Xxxxx v. Proskauer Rose LLP, No. 2011-77793 (Tex., Xxxxxx Cnty. [281st Dist.]) (dismissed without prejudice as non-suited on March 12, 2014)
Xxxxx v. City of New York, No. 11 Civ. 4568, 2012 WL 1701356, at *1 (2d Cir. May 16, 2012) (citing Xxxxxxxxx x. Xxxxxx, 516 F.3d 50, 56 (2d Cir. 2008)). 27 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009). 28 Xxxxxx x. Xxxxxxxx, 594 F.3d 150, 161 (2d Cir. 2010) (quoting Iqbal,
Xxxxx v. Saturn Distribution Corp., 78 F.3d 424, 430 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Andros Compania Maritima, S.A.
Xxxxx v. Xxxxx Xxxx and Xxx.Xxxx,621 the Court, promulgating public trust doctrine, contributed to the aim of sustainable development. In the Taj Trapezium Case, the Court clarified that: “The old concept that development and ecology cannot go together is no longer acceptable. Sustainable development is the answer. The development of industry is essential for the economy of the country, but at the same time the environment and the eco-systems have to be protected. The pollution created as a consequence of development must commensurate with the carrying capacity of our eco-systems.”622
Xxxxx v. Union of India and others, AIR 1997 SC 734. sustainable development would come into play which will ensure that imitative steps are and can be taken to preserve the ecological balance…”.623
Xxxxx v. Union of India & Ors., the Court stated that: "While it is true that in a developing country there shall have to be developments, but that development shall have to be in closest possible harmony with the environment, as, otherwise, there would be development but no environment, which would result in total devastation, though however, may not be felt in presently but at some future point of time, but then, it would be too late in the day, however, to control and improve the environment. Nature will not tolerate us after a certain degree of its destruction and it will, in any event, have its toll on the lives of the people. Can the present-day society afford to have such a state and allow the nature to have its toll in future - the answer shall have to be in the negative. The present-day society has a responsibility towards the posterity for their proper growth and development so as to allow the posterity to breathe normally and live in a cleaner environment and have a consequent xxxxxx development. Time has now come therefore to check and control the degradation of the environment and since the Law Courts also have a duty towards the society for its proper growth and further development, it is a plain exercise of the judicial power to see that there is no such degradation of the society and there ought not to be any hesitation in regard thereto...”.625
Xxxxx v. Union of India (Trapezium matter),655 the Supreme Court applied that Polluter Pays principle and Precautionary principle of International law as law of the land of India as India being party to the United Nation Conference and signatory to International Declarations and Agreements.
Xxxxx v. Gov’t of Canada (UNCITRAL Partial Award, Nov. 12, 2000), 40 I.L.M. 1408 (2001), pg. no. 283-284. 21 Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxx and Xxxxx Xxxxxxxx, Law and Practice of Investment Treaties: Standards of Treatment, Kluwer Law International, 2009. Pg. No. 281. 22 Xxxxxxxxxx X (2004). The International Law on Foreign Investment. Second Edition. Cambridge University Press. Xxxxxxxxx.xx. No. 357. 23 Supra Note 5. 24 Ibid.
Xxxxx v. Rent-A-Center, Inc. In September 1999, the plaintiff filed this class action lawsuit in California alleging that the classification of and pay to the Company's executive assistant managers and inside/outside managers is contrary to California wage and hour laws. Plaintiff's complaint seeks class certification, unspecified compensatory and penalty damages, injunctive relief, attorney's fees, filing fees and costs of suit, pre- and post-judgment interest, and any further relief granted by the court. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. However, given the early stage of this proceeding, there can be no assurance that the Company will prevail without liability.
Xxxxx v. State, 530 So. 2d 915 (Fla. 1988) (city police officer lacked authority to seize vehicle on private property outside city limits); Xxxxxxx v. State, 143 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962), cert. denied, 148 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 1962). Cf. Art. VIII, s. 2(c), Fla. Const., providing
