- Climate Litigation Database
- /
- Search
- /
- Native Village of Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp.
Native Village of Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp.
Native Village of Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp. ↗
12-1072U.S.4 entries
Filing Date
Document
Type
05/20/2013
Certiorari denied.
The Supreme Court denied the Native Village of Kivalina’s petition for a writ of certiorari without comment.
Decision
02/25/2013
Petition for writ of certiorari filed.
An Alaskan Village whose village is threatened by climate change filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of a Ninth Circuit’s decision finding that its lawsuit seeking damages under state common law was displaced by the Clean Air Act.
Petition For Writ Of Certiorari
01/01/2008
Filing Year For Action
Filing Year For Action
Native Village of Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp. ↗
09-17490United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (9th Cir.)28 entries
Filing Date
Document
Type
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
Native Village of Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp. ↗
4:08-cv-01138-SBAUnited States District Court for the Northern District of California (N.D. Cal.)3 entries
Filing Date
Document
Type
09/30/2009
Order issued granting defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
A federal court granted a motion to dismiss in a lawsuit brought against 24 oil, energy, and utility companies by Inupiat Eskimos from Kivalina, Alaska. In dismissing the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the court held that the question of how best to address climate change was a political question not appropriate for a federal trial court to decide. The court also held that the plaintiffs could not demonstrate that the companies had caused them injury. The lawsuit alleged that as a result of climate change, the Arctic sea ice that protects the Kivalina coast from storms had been diminished and that resulting erosion would require relocation of the residents at a cost of between $95 and $400 million.
Decision
01/01/2008
Filing Year For Action
Filing Year For Action