| A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | AA | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2 | This database tracks loss and damage climate cases filed globally and is managed by NYU Law's Climate Law Accelerator (CLX). Please cite as Climate Law Accelerator (CLX), Database of Loss and Damage Climate Cases (NYU Law). Date of last updated 04/02/2025. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
3 | Number | Year Filed | Case Name | Jurisdiction | Status | Summary | Climate Trend or Event (that caused the loss or damage) | Remedy Sought | Legal Basis | Defendant Type | Named Defendants | Court of First Instance | Notable Information | External links | |||||||||||||
4 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
5 | 1 | 2004 | Connecticut v. American Electric Power | U.S. | Dismissed | Several U.S. states and New York City sued large electric power generators, arguing that emissions from the generators were causing the public nuisance of climate change. | Extreme heat, sea level rise, and coastal storms | Joint and several liablity "for creating, contributing to, and/or maintaining a public nuisance" and an injunction requiring the defendants to cap and progressively reduce their CO2 emissions. | Public Nuisance (state and federal) | Corporation | American Electric Power Company, Inc.; American Electric Power Service Corp.; The Southern Co.; Tennessee Valley Authority; XCEL Energy, Inc.; and Cinergy Corp. | District Court for the Southern District of New York | In a unanimous decision authored by Justice Ginsberg, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed this case on the grounds that federal common law was displaced by the Clean Air Act, which entrusted greenhouse gas regulation to the Environmental Protection Agency. | https://climatecasechart.com/case/american-electric-power-co-v-connecticut/ | |||||||||||||
6 | 2 | 2006 | California v. General Motors | U.S. | Dismissed | The state of California sued car manufacturing companies for causing harms to the state and its citizens by contributing substantial greenhouse gas emissions. | Reduced snowpack, sea-level rise, increased ozone pollution, and wildfires | Monetary damages based on the defendants' joint and several liability for creating, contributing to, and maintaining a public nuisance and a declaratory judgment regarding future monetary damages caused by climate change | Public Nuisance (state and federal) | Corporation | General Motors Corp.; Toyota Motor North America; Ford Motor Co.; Honda North America, Inc.; Chrysler Motors Corp.; and Nissan North America, Inc. | District Court for the Northern District of California | https://climatecasechart.com/case/california-v-gm-corp/ | ||||||||||||||
7 | 3 | 2008 | Native Village of Kivalina v. ExxonMobil | U.S. | Dismissed | An indigenous Alaskan village sought damages from oil and power companies for climate change impacts and the resulting need to relocate the village. | Loss of sea ice, flooding, and erosion | Monetary damages based on the defendants' joint and several liability for civil conspiracy, concert of action, and "creating, contributing to, and maintaining a public nuisance" and a declaratory judgment regarding future monetary damages caused by climate change | Public Nuisance (state and federal); Civil Conspiracy; and Concert of Action (engaging in tortious action in concert with others) | Corporation | ExxonMobil Corp.; BP p.l.c.; BP Products North America, Inc.; Chevron Corp.; Chevron U.S.A., Inc.; ConocoPhillips Co.; Royal Dutch Shell p.l.c.; Shell Oil Co.; Peabody Energy Corp.; The AES Corp.; American Electric Power Company, Inc.; American Electric Power Services Corp.; DTE Energy Co.; Duke Energy Corp.; Dynergy Holdings, Inc.; Edison International; MidAmerican Energy Holdings Co.; Mirant Corp.; NRG Energy; Pinnacle West Capital Corp.; Reliant Energy, Inc.; The Southern Co.; and XCEL Energy, Inc. | District Court for the Northern District of California | https://climatecasechart.com/case/native-village-of-kivalina-v-exxonmobil-corp/ | ||||||||||||||
8 | 4 | 2005 | Comer v. Murphy Oil USA | U.S. | Dismissed | Residents and property owners in the state of Mississippi sued energy companies for exacerbating Hurricane Katrina by emitting substantial volumes of greenhouse gases. | Hurricane Katrina in 2005 | Compensatory and punitive damages | Public Nuisance; Private Nuisance; Trespass; and Negligence | Corporation | Murphy Oil USA, Inc.; Shell Oil Co.; Chevron U.S.A. Inc.; ExxonMobil Corp.; BP Amoco Chemical Co.; BP Energy Co.; BP Products North America Inc.; Placid Oil Co.; Kerr-McGee Oil & Gas Corp.; Total Petrochemicals USA, Inc.; ConocoPhillips Co.; Atlantic Richfield Co.; Pioneer Natural Resources USA, Inc.; Occidental Crude Sales, Inc.; Occidental Energy Marketing, Inc.; Total Gas & Power North America, Inc.; Hess Corp.; Anadarko Petroleum Corp.; Apache Corp.; Burlington Resources Offshore, Inc.; AEP Generating Co.; Columbus Southern Power Co., D/B/A AEP Ohio; Ohio Power Company, D/B/A AEP Ohio; Southwestern Electrical Power Co.; AEP Texas Central Co.; AEP Texas North Co.; Appalachian Power Co.; Indiana Michigan Power Co.; Kentucky Power Co.; Public Service Co. of Oklahoma; Alabama Power Co.; Georgia Power Co.; Gulf Power Co.; Southern Power Co.; Tennessee Valley Authority; XCEL Energy Inc.; Northern States Power Co.; Public Service Co. of Colorado; Southwestern Public Service Co.; Energy Future Holdings Corp.; Cinergy Corp.; Duke Energy Corp.; NRG Energy, Inc.; Southern California Edison Co.; Edison Mission Energy; Edison Mission Energy Petroleum; Edison Mission Energy Services, Inc.; Edison Mission Energy Fuel; Edison Capital; Edison International; LG&E Energy, Inc.; LG&E Power Inc.; Kentucky Utilities Co.; Western Kentucky Energy Corp.; Carolina Power & Light Co. D/B/A Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc.; Florida Power Corp. D/B/A Progress Energy Florida, Inc.; Ameren Energy Generating Co.; Union Electric Co., D/B/A Ameren UE; Emeren Energy Resources Co.; Ameren Energy Fuels and Services Co.; Central Illinois Public Service Co., D/B/A Ameren CIPS; Central Illinois Light Co., D/B/A AmerenCILCO; Illinois Power Co., D/B/A Ameren IP; Ameren Energy Generating Co.; Ameren Energy Marketing Co.; Entergy Corp.; FirstEnergy Corp.; Virginia Electric and Power Co.; Dominion Energy, Inc.; DTE Energy Co.; Nextera Energy, Inc.; Florida Power & Light Co.; The AES Corp.; Arch Coal, Inc.; International Coal Group, Inc.; Alpha Natural Resources Inc.; Consol Energy, Inc.; Foundation Coal Holdings. Inc.; Massey Energy Co.; Westmoreland Coal Co.; Peabody Energy Corp.; Rio Tinto Energy America, Inc.; The North American Coal Corp.; Ohio Valley Coal Co.; and BHP Minerals International, Inc. | District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi | Due to procedural irregularities, this case was refiled in 2011. | https://climatecasechart.com/case/comer-v-murphy-oil-usa-inc/ https://climatecasechart.com/case/comer-v-murphy-oil-usa-inc-2/ | |||||||||||||
9 | 5 | 2012 | In re: AD (Tuvalu) | New Zealand | Rejected | A husband and wife from Tuvalu sought refugee status on the basis that they would be deprived of a "safe and fufilling life" if forced to return to Tuvalu. | Sea level rise, and the resulting harms | International protection (refugee and protected person status) | New Zealand Immgiration Act of 2009 | Government | New Zealand | Immigration and Protection Tribunal | https://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/in-re-ad-tuvalu/ | ||||||||||||||
10 | 6 | 2012 | Mbabazi v. The Attorney General and National Environmental Management Authority | Uganda | Pending | Four children and an NGO are suing the Ugandan government for causing loss and damage from climate change by failing to protect the plaintiffs from climate change impacts. | Extreme precipitation, drought, and extreme storms | An order "directing government to compensate victims of climate change" and take measures to protect prevent loss and damage from climate change; an order directing the government to conduct an updated carbon accounting and develop a strategy for mitigating greenhouse gas emissions; an order requiring the goverment to protect the plaintiffs from extreme weather conditions caused by climate change; an order requiring the government to implement international conventions, treaties, and protocols on climate change; a declaratory judgment that the government holds natural resources in trust for present and future generations; and a declaratory judgment that failure to curb "atmospheric pollution is a violation of the plaintiffs' right to a clean and healthy environment" | Ugandan Constitution | Government | Attorney General of Uganda and National Environment Management Authority | High Court at Kampala | https://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/mbabazi-et-al-v-attorney-general-et-al/ | ||||||||||||||
11 | 7 | 2013 | XX v. YY | New Zealand | Rejected | A citizen of Kiribati sought protection in New Zealand from the impacts of rising sea levels in Kiribati. | Sea level rise, and the resulting harms | International refugee protection | Immigration Act of 2009; Refugee Convention; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights | Government | New Zealand | Immigration and Protection Tribunal | https://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/xx-v-yy/ | ||||||||||||||
12 | 8 | 2013 | Teitiota v. The Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment | New Zealand | Rejected | A citizen of Kiribati sought protection in New Zealand from the impacts of rising sea levels in Kiribati. | Sea level rise, and the resulting harms | International refugee protection | Immigration Act of 2009; Refugee Convention; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights | Government | The Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment | Immigration and Protection Tribunal | While rejecting the Teitiota, the applicant, the New Zealand Supreme Court acknowledged that "environmental degradation resulting from climate change" could provide a basis for refugee protection. The applicant challenged his deportation with a communication to the U.N. Human Rights Committee (see Teitiota v. New Zealand) | https://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/ioane-teitiota-v-the-chief-executive-of-the-ministry-of-business-innovation-and-employment/ | |||||||||||||
13 | 9 | 2015 | Lliuya v. RWE | Germany | Pending | A Peruvian farmer is suing RWE, a german energy company, for causing climate-induced glacial melt by emitting substantial volumes of greenhouse gases, thereby impairing his land with a serious flood risk. | Glacial retreat | An order to abate the nuisance by paying 17,000 Euro toward the cost of draining the glacial lake that threatens the plaintiff's land | Section 1004 of German Civil Code | Corporation | RWE AG | District Court of Essen | The plaintiff is asking for 17,000 Euro because this is 0.47% of the total cost to abate the nuisance; this amount is proportional to the defendant's share of global cummulative greenhouse gas emissions since 1751. | https://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/lliuya-v-rwe-ag/ | |||||||||||||
14 | 10 | 2015 | Carbon Majors Inquiry | Pilippines | Granted | A group of individuals and organizations filed a petition with the Human Rights Commission to investigate whether investor owned-Carbon Majors breached their responsibilities regarding Filipino's rights by causing a substantial portion of greenhouse gas emissions since 1751. | Sea level rise, heatwaves, flooding, tropical cyclones, extreme storms, ocean acidification, and shifting precipitation patterns | An investigation into whether investor-owned Carbon Majors (companies responsible for substantial greenhouse gas emissions) "breached their responsibilities to respect the rights of the Filipino people;" monitor communities that are vulnerable to the impacts of climate change; a recommendation that policymakers adopt standards for corporate human rights standards regarding climate change; a recommendation that policymakers adopt accountability mechanisms for victims of climate change; the submission of plans on remedying threats to rights caused by climate change; and a recommendation that other states take steps to prevent, remedy, or eliminate past or future rights violations resulting from the impacts of climate change | Philippines Constitution | Corporation | The 'Carbon Majors' (as defined in Richard Heede, 2014) | Human Rights Commission | The Philippines Human Rights Commission issued a report that found the Carbon Majors responsible for climate change impacts and potentially liable for loss and damage stemming from these impacts. This report issued non-binding recommendations. | https://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/in-re-greenpeace-southeast-asia-et-al/ | |||||||||||||
15 | 11 | 2015 | Teitiota v. New Zealand | U.N. Human Rights Committee | Dismissed | A man from Kiribati filed a communication with the Human Rights Committee arguing that New Zealand violated his right to life by deporting him to Kiribati, where he is threatened by the impacts of sea level rise. | Sea level rise, and the resulting harms | A declaration that New Zealand violated the applicant's right to life by deporting him | Article 6 (right to life) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights | Government | New Zealand | U.N. Human Rights Committee | The Human Rights Committee decided that climate change did not pose a sufficiently immediate risk to Teitiota, the applicant. However, it did establish that states may have an obligation to protect refugees who would be at risk from climate change impacts in their home country. The applicant also resisted his deportation in the New Zealand courts (see Ioane Teitiota v. The Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment). The Human Rights Committee's decision is non-binding. | https://www.refworld.org/jurisprudence/caselaw/hrc/2020/en/123128 | |||||||||||||
16 | 12 | 2017 | City of Imperial Beach v. Chevron | U.S. | Pending | A county is suing fossil fuel companies for causing climate change impacts by producing and promoting fossil fuels while sowing doubt about climate change. | Sea level rise, and its resulting harms | Compensatory damages; equitable relief to abate the nuisances; punitive damages; and disgorgement of profits | Public Nuisance; Strict Liability for Failure to Warn; Strict Liability for Design Defect; Private Nuisance; Negligence; Negligence for Failure to Warn; and Trespass | Corporation | Chevron Corp.; Chevron U.S.A. Inc.; ExxonMobil Corp.; BP p.l.c. BP America, Inc.; Royal Dutch Shell p.l.c.; Shell Oil Products Co. LLC; Citgo Petroleum Corp.; ConocoPhillips; ConocoPhillips Co.; Phillips 66; Peabody Energy Corp.; Total E&P USA, Inc.; Total Specialities USA, Inc.; Arch Coal, Inc.; ENI S.p.A.; ENI Oil and Gas Inc.; Rio Tinto p.l.c.; Rio Tinto LTD; Rio Tinto Energy America, Inc.; Rio Tinto Minerals, Inc.; Rio Tinto Services, Inc.; Statoil ASA; Anadarko Petroleum Corp.; Occidental Petrolem Corp.; Occidental Chemical Corp.; Repsol S.A.; Repsol Energy North America Corp.; Repsol Trading USA Corp.; Marathon Oil Co.; Marathon Oil Corp.; Marathon Petroleum Corp.; Hess Corp.; Devon Energy Corp.; Devon Energy Production Co., L.P.; Encana Corp.; Apache Corp.; and Does 1-100 | Superior Court of California | In August 2018 the Ninth Circuit consolidated the fossil fuel companies appeals in the cases brought by the County of San Mateo, County of Marin, City of Imperial Beach, County of Santa Cruz, City of Santa Cruz, and City of Richmond. These six cases proceeded on a consoliated basis to the Supreme Court and on April 24, 2023 the Supreme Court denied fossil fuel industry defendants’ petitions for writ of certiorari seeking review of decisions affirming remand orders that sent climate change cases brought by state and local governments back to state courts. | https://climatecasechart.com/case/county-san-mateo-v-chevron-corp/ | |||||||||||||
17 | 13 | 2017 | County of Marin v. Chevron | U.S. | Pending | A county is suing fossil fuel companies for causing climate change impacts by producing and promoting fossil fuels while sowing doubt about climate change. | Sea level rise, and its resulting harms | Compensatory damages; equitable relief to abate the nuisances; punitive damages; and disgorgement of profits | Public Nuisance; Strict Liability for Failure to Warn; Strict Liability for Design Defect; Private Nuisance; Negligence; Negligence for Failure to Warn; and Trespass | Corporation | Chevron Corp.; Chevron U.S.A. Inc.; ExxonMobil Corp.; BP p.l.c. BP America, Inc.; Royal Dutch Shell p.l.c.; Shell Oil Products Co. LLC; Citgo Petroleum Corp.; ConocoPhillips; ConocoPhillips Co.; Phillips 66; Peabody Energy Corp.; Total E&P USA, Inc.; Total Specialities USA, Inc.; Arch Coal, Inc.; ENI S.p.A.; ENI Oil and Gas Inc.; Rio Tinto p.l.c.; Rio Tinto LTD; Rio Tinto Energy America, Inc.; Rio Tinto Minerals, Inc.; Rio Tinto Services, Inc.; Statoil ASA; Anadarko Petroleum Corp.; Occidental Petrolem Corp.; Occidental Chemical Corp.; Repsol S.A.; Repsol Energy North America Corp.; Repsol Trading USA Corp.; Marathon Oil Co.; Marathon Oil Corp.; Marathon Petroleum Corp.; Hess Corp.; Devon Energy Corp.; Devon Energy Production Co., L.P.; Encana Corp.; Apache Corp.; and Does 1-100 | Superior Court of California | In August 2018 the Ninth Circuit consolidated the fossil fuel companies appeals in the cases brought by the County of San Mateo, County of Marin, City of Imperial Beach, County of Santa Cruz, City of Santa Cruz, and City of Richmond. These six cases proceeded on a consoliated basis to the Supreme Court and on April 24, 2023 the Supreme Court denied fossil fuel industry defendants’ petitions for writ of certiorari seeking review of decisions affirming remand orders that sent climate change cases brought by state and local governments back to state courts. | https://climatecasechart.com/case/county-san-mateo-v-chevron-corp/ | |||||||||||||
18 | 14 | 2017 | County of San Mateo v. Chevron | U.S. | Pending | A county is suing fossil fuel companies for causing climate change impacts by producing and promoting fossil fuels while sowing doubt about climate change. | Sea level rise, and its resulting harms | Compensatory damages; equitable relief to abate the nuisances; punitive damages; and disgorgement of profits | Public Nuisance; Strict Liability for Failure to Warn; Strict Liability for Design Defect; Private Nuisance; Negligence; Negligence for Failure to Warn; and Trespass | Corporation | Chevron Corp.; Chevron U.S.A. Inc.; ExxonMobil Corp.; BP p.l.c..; BP America, Inc.; Royal Dutch Shell p.l.c.; Shell Oil Products Company LLC; Citgo Petroleum Corp.; ConocoPhillips; ConocoPhillips Company; Phillips 66; Peabody Energy Corp.; Total E&P USA Inc.; Total Specialties USA Inc.; Arch Coal, Inc.; Eni S.p.A.; Eni Oil & Gas : Inc.; Rio Tinto p.l.c.; Rio Tinto Ltd.; Rio Tinto Energy America Inc.; Rio Tinto Minerals, Inc.; Rio Tinto Services Inc.; Statoil Asa; Anadarko Petroleum Corp.; Occidental Petroleum Corp.; Occidental Chemical Corp.; Repsol S.A.; Repsol Energy North America Corp.; Repsol Trading USA Corp.; Marathon Oil Company; Marathon Oil Corp.; Marathon Petroleum Corp.; Hess Corp.; Devon Energy Corp.; Devon Energy Production Company, L.P.; Encana Corp.; Apache Corp.; and Does 1-100 | Superior Court of California | In August 2018 the Ninth Circuit consolidated the fossil fuel companies appeals in the cases brought by the County of San Mateo, County of Marin, City of Imperial Beach, County of Santa Cruz, City of Santa Cruz, and City of Richmond. These six cases proceeded on a consoliated basis to the Supreme Court and on April 24, 2023 the Supreme Court denied fossil fuel industry defendants’ petitions for writ of certiorari seeking review of decisions affirming remand orders that sent climate change cases brought by state and local governments back to state courts. | https://climatecasechart.com/case/county-san-mateo-v-chevron-corp/ | |||||||||||||
19 | 15 | 2017 | City of Oakland v. BP | U.S. | Pending | The city of Oakland is suing fossil fuel companies for causing climate change by producing a large quantity of fossil fuels while misrepresenting the threat posed by these fuels. | Sea level rise, and its resulting harms | Finding the defendants jointly and severally liable for causing a public nuisance and an abatement fund to pay for the city to adapt to climate change | Public Nuisance | Corporation | BP p.l.c.; Chevron Corp.; ConocoPhillips; ExxonMobil Corp.; and Royal Dutch Shell p.l.c.; and Does 1-10 | Superior Court of California | https://climatecasechart.com/case/people-state-california-v-bp-p.l.c.-oakland/ | ||||||||||||||
20 | 16 | 2017 | County of Santa Cruz v. Chevron | U.S. | Pending | A California county is suing fossil fuel companies for sowing doubt about climate change while promoting and profiting from fossil fuels. | Sea level rise, and its resulting harms; disruptions to the hydrological cycle; drought; extreme precipitation; heatwaves; and wildfires | Compensatory damages; equitable relief, including abatement of the nuisances; punitive damages; and disgorgement of profits | Public Nuisance; Strict Lliability - Failure to Warn; Strict Liability - Design Defect; Private Nuisance; Negligence - Failure to Warn; and Trespass | Corporation | Chevron Corp.; Chevron USA. Inc.; Exxonmobil Corp.; BP p.l.c.; BP America, Inc.; Royal Dutch Shell p.l.c.; Shell Oil Products Co. LLC; Citgo Petroleum Corp.; ConocoPhillips; ConocoPhillips Company; Phillips 66; Total E&P USA Inc.; Total Specialties USA Inc.; Eni S.p.A.; Eni Oil & Gas Inc.; Anadarko Petroleum Corp.; Occidental Petroleum Corp.; Occidental Chemical Corp.; Repsol S.A.; Repsol Energy North America Corp.; Repsol Trading USA Corp.; Marathon Oil Company; Marathon Oil Corp.; Marathon Petroleum Corp.; Hess Corp.; Devon Energy Corp.; Devon Energy Production Company, L.P.; Encana Corp.; Apache Corp.; and Does 1-100 | Superior Court of California | In August 2018 the Ninth Circuit consolidated the fossil fuel companies appeals in the cases brought by the County of San Mateo, County of Marin, City of Imperial Beach, County of Santa Cruz, City of Santa Cruz, and City of Richmond. These six cases proceeded on a consoliated basis to the Supreme Court and on April 24, 2023 the Supreme Court denied fossil fuel industry defendants’ petitions for writ of certiorari seeking review of decisions affirming remand orders that sent climate change cases brought by state and local governments back to state courts. | https://climatecasechart.com/case/county-santa-cruz-v-chevron-corp/ | |||||||||||||
21 | 17 | 2017 | City of Santa Cruz v. Chevron | U.S. | Pending | A California county is suing fossil fuel companies for sowing doubt about climate change while promoting and profiting from fossil fuels. | Sea level rise, and its resulting harms; disruptions to the hydrological cycle; drought; extreme precipitation; heatwaves; and wildfires | Compensatory damages; equitable relief, including abatement of the nuisances; punitive damages; and disgorgement of profits | Public Nuisance; Strict Lliability - Failure to Warn; Strict Liability - Design Defect; Private Nuisance; Negligence - Failure to Warn; and Trespass | Corporation | Chevron Corp.; Chevron USA. Inc.; Exxonmobil Corp.; BP p.l.c.; BP America, Inc.; Royal Dutch Shell p.l.c.; Shell Oil Products Co. LLC; Citgo Petroleum Corp.; ConocoPhillips; ConocoPhillips Company; Phillips 66; Total E&P USA Inc.; Total Specialties USA Inc.; Eni S.p.A.; Eni Oil & Gas Inc.; Anadarko Petroleum Corp.; Occidental Petroleum Corp.; Occidental Chemical Corp.; Repsol S.A.; Repsol Energy North America Corp.; Repsol Trading USA Corp.; Marathon Oil Company; Marathon Oil Corp.; Marathon Petroleum Corp.; Hess Corp.; Devon Energy Corp.; Devon Energy Production Company, L.P.; Encana Corp.; Apache Corp.; and Does 1-100 | Superior Court of California | The City of Santa Cruz (Case No. 17CV03243) and the County of Santa Cruz (Case No. 17CV03242) filed separate, but nearly identical cases in December 2017. In August 2018 the Ninth Circuit consolidated the fossil fuel companies appeals in the cases brought by the County of San Mateo, County of Marin, City of Imperial Beach, County of Santa Cruz, City of Santa Cruz, and City of Richmond. These six cases proceeded on a consoliated basis to the Supreme Court and on April 24, 2023 the Supreme Court denied fossil fuel industry defendants’ petitions for writ of certiorari seeking review of decisions affirming remand orders that sent climate change cases brought by state and local governments back to state courts. | https://climatecasechart.com/case/county-santa-cruz-v-chevron-corp/; https://www.sheredling.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/SC-City-Complaint-Endorsed.pdf | |||||||||||||
22 | 18 | 2018 | City of Richmond v. Chevron | U.S. | Pending | A city in California is is suing fossil fuel companies for sowing doubt about climate change while promoting and profiting from fossil fuels. | Sea level rise, and its resulting harms; disruptions to the hydrological cycle; drought; extreme precipitation; and heatwaves | Compensatory damages and equitable relief, including abatement of the nuisances | Public Nuisance; Public Nuisance on behalf of the people of California; Strict Liability - Failure to Warn; Strict Liability - Design Defect; Private Nuisance; Negligence; Negligence - Failure to Warn; and Trespass | Corporation | Chevron Corp.; Chevron USA. Inc.; Exxonmobil Corp.; BP p.l.c.; BP America, Inc.; Royal Dutch Shell p.l.c.; Shell Oil Products Co. LLC; Citgo Petroleum Corp.; ConocoPhillips; ConocoPhillips Company; Phillips 66; Total E&P USA Inc.; Total Specialties USA Inc.; Eni S.p.A.; Eni Oil & Gas Inc.; Anadarko Petroleum Corp.; Occidental Petroleum Corp.; Occidental Chemical Corp.; Repsol S.A.; Repsol Energy North America Corp.; Repsol Trading USA Corp.; Marathon Oil Company; Marathon Oil Corp.; Marathon Petroleum Corp.; Hess Corp.; Devon Energy Corp.; Devon Energy Production Company, L.P.; Encana Corp.; Apache Corp.; and Does 1-100 | Superior Court of California | In August 2018 the Ninth Circuit consolidated the fossil fuel companies appeals in the cases brought by the County of San Mateo, County of Marin, City of Imperial Beach, County of Santa Cruz, City of Santa Cruz, and City of Richmond. These six cases proceeded on a consoliated basis to the Supreme Court and on April 24, 2023 the Supreme Court denied fossil fuel industry defendants’ petitions for writ of certiorari seeking review of decisions affirming remand orders that sent climate change cases brought by state and local governments back to state courts. | https://climatecasechart.com/case/county-santa-cruz-v-chevron-corp/ | |||||||||||||
23 | 19 | 2018 | Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County v. Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) | U.S. | Pending | Three local governments are seeking damages from fossil fuel companies for "selling a substantial portion of the fossil fuels that are causing and exacerbating climate change, while concealing and misrepresenting the dangers associated with their intended use." | Heat, wildfire, drought, shifting precipitation patterns, increased spread of insects, and flooding | Treble compensatory damages for the costs of mitigating past and future harms; treble compensatory damages for losses of value (e.g., decreased value in water rights); and remediation or abatement of climate-induced hazards | Public Nuisance; Private Nuisance; Trespass; Unjust Enrichment; Consumer Protection Violation; and Civil Conspiracy | Corporation | Suncor Energy (U.S.A.); Inc.; Suncor Energy Sales, Inc.; Suncor Energy, Inc.; and ExxonMobil Corp. | Colorado District Court | The plaintiffs specifically state in their complaint that they are not asking the court to enjoin fossil fuel operations or sales. They also clarify that they are not seeking damages for lobbying activity (which is protected speech). | https://climatecasechart.com/case/board-of-county-commissioners-of-boulder-county-v-suncor-energy-usa-inc/ | |||||||||||||
24 | 20 | 2018 | Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. BP | U.S. | Pending | The city of Baltimore is suing 26 fossil fuel companies for causing climate change impacts by producing, promoting, and marketing fossil fuels while concealing the dangers of fossil fuels and undermining climate science. | Sea level rise; heat; extreme precipitation, flooding, and drought | Compensatory damages; equitable relief, including abatement of the nuisances; civil penalties for violations of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act; punitive damages; and disgorgement of profits | Public Nuisance; Private Nuisance; Strict Liability for Failure to Warn; Strict Liability for Design Defect; Negligent Design Defect; Negligent Failure to Warn; Trespass; and the Maryland Consumer Protection Act | Corporation | BP p.l.c.; BP America, Inc.; BP Products North America Inc.; Crown Central Petroleum Corp.; Crown Central LLC; Crown Central New Holdings LLC; Chevron Corp.; Chevron U.s.a., Inc., ExxonMobil Corp.; Exxonmobil Oil Corp.; Royal Dutch Shell p.l.c.; Shell Oil Co.; Citgo Petroleum Corp.; ConocoPhillips; ConocoPhillips Company; Louisiana Land & Exploration Co.; Phillips 66; Phillips 66 Company; Marathon Oil Company; Marathon Oil Corp.; Marathon Petroleum Corp.; Speedway LLC; Hess Corp.; Cnx Resources Corp.; Consol Energy Inc.; and Consol Marine Terminals LLC | Circuit Court for Baltimore City | Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim granted by Maryland trial court. Plaintiffs appealed the decision in August 2024. The case number for the appeal is ACM-REG-1290-2024 and further information can be found in the Maryland Courts system. | https://climatecasechart.com/case/mayor-city-council-of-baltimore-v-bp-plc/; https://casesearch.courts.state.md.us/casesearch/inquiry-search.jsp | |||||||||||||
25 | 21 | 2018 | City of New York v. BP | U.S. | Dismissed | New York City sued the five largest investor-owned fossil fuel companies for producing, marketing, and selling "massive quantities of fossil fuels" while knowing that this would cause the resulting harms. | Extreme heat, sea level rise, extreme precipitation, and flooding | Compensatory damages for past and ongoing costs and equitable relief to abate the nuisance and trespass"that would become effective if Defendants fail to pay the court-determined damages for past and permanent injuries inflicted" | Public Nuisance; Private Nuisance; Trespass | Corporation | BP p.l.c.; Chevron Corp.; ConocoPhillips; ExxonMobil Corp.; and Royal Dutch Shell p.l.c. | District Court for the Southern District of New York | https://climatecasechart.com/case/city-new-york-v-bp-p.l.c./ | ||||||||||||||
26 | 22 | 2018 | Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Association v. Chevron | U.S. | Voluntarily dismissed | A fishermen association sued fossil fuel companies for financial losses caused by climate-induced damage to ocean fisheries and ecosystems; they argued that the companies caused these damages by promoting and selling substantial quantities of fossil fuels while obscuring the risks associated with this pollution. | Marine heatwaves; domoic acid outbreaks; algal blooms | Compensatory damages; equitable relief, including abatement; punitive damages; and disgorgement of profits | Nuisance; Strict Liability Failure to Warn; Strict Liability Design Defect; Negligence; Negligence Failure to Warn | Corporation | Chevron Corp.; Chevron U.S.A. Inc.; ExxonMobil Corp.; Exxonmobil Oil Corp.; BP p.l.c.; BP America, Inc.; Royal Dutch Shell p.l.c.; Shell Oil Products Co. LLC; Citgo Petroleum Corp.; ConocoPhillips; ConocoPhillips Co.; Phillips 66; Total E&P USA Inc.; Total Specialties USA Inc.; Eni S.p.A.; Eni Oil & Gas Inc.; Anadarko Petroleum Corp.; Occidental Petroleum Corp.; Occidental Chemical Corp.; Repsol S.a.; Repsol Energy North America Corp.; Repsol Trading USA Corp.; Marathon Oil Co.; Marathon Oil Corp.; Marathon Petroleum Corp.; Hess Corp.; Devon Energy Corp.; Devon Energy Production Co., L.P.; Encana Corp.; Apache Corp.; and Does 1-100 | Superior Court of California | The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their case after a federal court concluded that the case was equivalent to a class action and therefore belonged in federal court rather than state court. | https://climatecasechart.com/case/pacific-coast-federation-of-fishermens-associations-inc-v-chevron-corp/ | |||||||||||||
27 | 23 | 2018 | Rhode Island v. Chevron | U.S. | Pending | The state of Rhode Island is suing fossil fuel companies for causing climate change impacts by producing, promoting, and marketing fossil fuels while concealing the risks of such fuels and undermining climate science. | Sea level rise, extreme heat, extreme precipitation, drought, and ocean warming and acidification | Compensatory damages; equitable relief, including abatement of the nuisances; punitive damages; and disgorgement of profits | Public Nuisance; Strict Liability Failure to Warn; Strict Liability Design Defect; Negligent Design Defect; Negligent Failure to Warn; Trespass; Impairment of Public Trust Resources; State Environmental Rights Act, Equitable Relief Action | Corporation | Chevron Corp.; Chevron U.S.A. Inc.; Exxonmobil Corp.; BP p.l.c.; BP America, Inc.; BP Products North America, Inc.; Royal Dutch Shell p.l.c.; Motiva Enterprises, LLC; Shell Oil Products Company LLC; Citgo Petroleum Corp.; ConocoPhillips; ConocoPhillips Company; Phillips 66; Marathon Oil Company; Marathon Oil Corp.; Marathon Petroleum Corp.; Marathon Petroleum Company L.P.; Speedway LLC; Hess Corp.; Lukoil Pan Americas, LLC; Getty Petroleum Marketing, Inc.; and Does 1-100 | Superior Court of Rhode Island | https://climatecasechart.com/case/rhode-island-v-chevron-corp/ | ||||||||||||||
28 | 24 | 2018 | King County v. BP | U.S. | Voluntarily dismissed | A county sued the five largest investor-owned fossil fuel companies for causing climate change impacts by producing and promoting fossil fuels while knowing that this would damage the county's property. | Sea level rise, extreme precipitation, heatwaves, and flooding | Compensatory damages for past and future harms; and an abatement fund to cover the costs of adapting to climate change | Public Nuisance and Trespass | Corporation | BP p.l.c.; Chevron Corp.; ConocoPhillips; ExxonMobil Corp.; Royal Dutch Shell p.l.c.; and Does 1-10 | Superior Court of Washington | https://climatecasechart.com/case/king-county-v-bp-p.l.c.// | ||||||||||||||
29 | 25 | 2019 | I.L. v. Italian Ministry of the Interior | Italy | Granted | A nigerian man sought humanitarian protection in Italy on the basis of environmental degradation in his home region, the Niger Delta. The Italian Supreme Court of Cassation ruled that courts must consider whether environmental degradation, including from climate change, in an applicant's country of origin would threaten their right to a dignified life if they were forced to return. | Unknown | International humanitarian protection | Consolidated Immigration Act (Legislative Decree) No. 286/1998 | Government | Italian Ministry of the Interior | Supreme Court of Cassation | This decision, which draws heavily on the U.N. Human Rights Committee's decision in Teitiota v. New Zealand, establishes precedent for protecting peoples displaced by climate change. | https://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/il-v-italian-ministry-of-the-interior-and-attorney-general-at-the-court-of-appeal-of-ancona/ | |||||||||||||
30 | 26 | 2020 | City of Hoboken v. ExxonMobil | U.S. | Pending | The city of Hoboken is suing energy companies and the American Petroleum Institute, a trade association, for causing climate-induced harms by producing fossil fuels and concealing the risks associated with these fuels. | Extreme heat, sea level rise, extreme precipitation, hurricanes, and coastal storms | Compensatory, consequential, and punitive damages; treble damages for violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and the New Jersey Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act; and an injunction ordering defendants to abtate the nuisance and pay the costs of abatement | Private nuisance; Trespass; Negligence; the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act; and the New Jersey Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act | Corporation | ExxonMobil Corp.; Exxonmobil Oil Corp.; Royal Dutch Shell p.l.c.; Shell Oil Co.; BP p.l.c.; BP America Inc.; Chevron Corp.; Chevron U.s.a. Inc.; ConocoPhillips; ConocoPhillips Co.; Phillips 66; Phillips 66 Co.; and American Petroleum Institute | Superior Court of New Jersey | https://climatecasechart.com/case/city-of-hoboken-v-exxon-mobil-corp/ | ||||||||||||||
31 | 27 | 2020 | City of Charleston v. Brabham Oil | U.S. | Pending | The city of Charleston is suing fossil fuel companies for causing climate change impacts by engaging in a campaign to conceal and sow doubt about climate change. | Sea level rise, and the resulting harms; hurricanes; drought; heatwaves; extreme precipitation; and ocean warming and acidification | Compensatory damages; treble damages; punitive damages; equitable relief, including abatement of the nuisances; and disgorgement of profits | Public Nuisance; Private Nuisance; Strict Liability for Failure to Warn; Negligent Failure to Warn; Trespass; South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act | Corporation | Brabham Oil Co., Inc.; Colonial Group, Inc.; Enmark Stations, Inc.; Colonial Pipeline Co.; Piedmont Petroleum Corp.; ExxonMobil Corp.; Exxonmobil Oil Corp.; Royal Dutch Shell p.l.c.; Shell Oil Co.; Shell Oil Products Co. LLC; Chevron Corp.; Chevron U.S.A. Inc.; BP p.l.c.; BP America Inc.; Marathon Petroleum Corp.; Marathon Petroleum Co. L.P.; Speedway LLC; Murphy Oil Corp.; Murphy Oil USA, Inc.; Hess Corp.; ConocoPhillips; ConocoPhillips Co.; Phillips 66; and Phillips 66 Co. | Court of Common Pleas, Ninth Judicial Circuit, South Carolina | https://climatecasechart.com/case/city-of-charleston-v-brabham-oil-co/ | ||||||||||||||
32 | 28 | 2020 | Connecticut v. ExxonMobil | U.S. | Pending | The state of Connecticut is suing ExxonMobil for causing climate change impacts by engaging in disinformation campaign to sow doubt about climate change. | Sea level rise, flooding, drought, extreme temperatures, a decrease in air quality, severe storms, contamination of drinking water, an increase in disease-transmitting species | Restitution for costs "attributable to ExxonMobil" that the state has suffered or will suffer as a result of climate change; an injunction ordering ExxonMobil to stop engaging in acts that violate the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA); civil penalties of $5000 for each violation of the CUTPA; disgorgement of profits; an injunction ordering ExxonMobil to "disclose all research and studies in its possession . . . that relates to the issue of climate change" and to "fund a corrective education campaign to remedy the harm inflicted by decades of disinformation" | Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act | Corporation | ExxonMobil Corp. | Superior Court of Connecticut | https://climatecasechart.com/case/state-v-exxon-mobil-corp/ | ||||||||||||||
33 | 29 | 2020 | Delaware v. BP America | U.S. | Pending | The state of Delaware is suing fossil fuel companies and the American Petroleum Institute for causing climate change impacts by producing and promoting fossil fuels while undermining and misrepresenting the dangers of fossil fuel use. | Sea level rise, and the resulting harms; coastal storms; flooding; drought; extreme heat; extreme precipitation; and ocean warming and acidification | Compensatory damages; civil penalties of $10,000 for each willful violation of the Delaware Consumer Fraud Act; and punitive damages | Negligent Failure to Warn; Trespass; Nuisance; Delaware Consumer Fraud Act; | Corporation | BP America Inc.; BP p.l.c.; Chevron Corp.; Chevron U.S.A. Inc.; ConocoPhillips; ConocoPhillips Co.; Phillips 66; Phillips 66 Co.; ExxonMobil Corp.; ExxonMobil Oil Corp.; Xto Energy Inc.; Hess Corp.; Marathon Oil Corp.; Marathon Oil Co.; Marathon Petroleum Corp.; Marathon Petroleum Co. L.P.; Speedway LLC; Murphy Oil Corp.; Murphy USA Inc.; Royal Dutch Shell p.l.c.; Shell Oil Co.; Citgo Petroleum Corp.; Total S.A.; Total Specialties USA Inc.; Occidental Petroleum Corp.; Devon Energy Corp.; Apache Corp.; Cnx Resources Corp.; Consol Energy Inc.; Ovintiv, Inc.; and American Petroleum Institute | Superior Court of Delaware | https://climatecasechart.com/case/state-v-bp-america-inc/ | ||||||||||||||
34 | 30 | 2020 | City & County of Honolulu v. Sunoco | U.S. | Pending | The city and county of Honolulu are suing fossil fuel companies for causing climate change impacts by producing and promoting fossil fuels while concealing risks associated with fossil fuels and undermining climate science. | Sea level rise, hurricanes and tropical storms, extreme precipitation, drought, heatwaves, ocean acidification, habitat loss for endemic species, dimished availability of freshwater resources, and expanded range of invasive and disease-carrying pests | Compensatory damages; equitable relief, including abatement of the nuisances; punitive damages; and disgorgement of profits | Public Nuisance; Private Nuisance; Strict Liability for Failure to Warn; Negligent Failure to Warn; and Trespass | Corporation | Sunoco L.P.; Aloha Petroleum, Ltd.; Aloha Petroleum LLC; ExxonMobil Corp.; ExxonMobil Oil Corp.; Royal Dutch Shell p.l.c.; Shell Oil Co.; Shell Oil Products Co. LLC; Chevron Corp; Chevron USA Inc.; Bhp Group Limited; Bhp Group p.l.c.; BHP Hawaii Inc.; BP p.l.c.; BP America Inc.; Marathon Petroleum Corp.; ConocoPhillips; ConocoPhillips Co.; Phillips 66; Phillips 66 Co.; and Does 1 Through 100 | Circuit Court of the First Circuit, Hawai'i | On January 13, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court denied, without dissent, two petitions for writ of certiorari brought by defendants. The fossil fuel companies sought review of the Hawai‘i Supreme Court’s decision allowing the City and County of Honolulu to proceed with its climate change-based claims against the defendants. Thus the Hawai'i Supreme Court's unanimous holding that federal law does not preempt the City and County of Honolulu's climate-deception claims remains in place. | https://climatecasechart.com/case/city-county-of-honolulu-v-sunoco-lp/ | |||||||||||||
35 | 31 | 2020 | State of Minnesota v. American Petroleum Institute | U.S. | Pending | The state of Minnesota is suing the American Petroleum Institute, ExxonMobil, and Koch Industries for causing climate change impacts by conducting a "campaign of deception" regarding climate change, rather than warning the public. | Extreme heat, extreme precipitation, flooding, increased pollen and ground-level ozone, and the shifting distribution of disease-carrying insects and pests | Restitution for damages; injunctive relief, including an order to "disclose, disseminate, and publish all research previously conducted directly or indirectly" on climate change and an order to "fund a corrective public education campaign;" and disgorgement of profits | Consumer Fraud Act; Strict Liability Failure to Warn; Negligent Liability Failure to Warn; Fraud and Misrepresentation; Deceptive Trade Practices; and the False Statement in Advertising Act | Corporation | American Petroleum Institute; ExxonMobil Corp.; ExxonMobil Oil Corp.; Koch Industries, Inc.; Flint Hills Resources L.P.; and Flint Hills Resources Pine Bend | District Court of Minnesota | Minnesota alleged in the complaint that climate change impacts, such as flooding, are causing serious mental health issues for the state's residents, among other injuries. The state represents the interests of its residents through the parens patriae doctrine, which government plaintiffs commonly rely on in U.S. loss and damage litigation. On February 14, 2025 the District Court granted defendant's motion to dismiss the first count, which alleged a violation of the Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act. The remaining four counts against the defendants were not dismissed. These include failure to warn -- strict and negligent liability, fraud and misrepresentation, deceptive trade practices, and violation of false statement in advertising. | https://climatecasechart.com/case/state-v-american-petroleum-institute/ | |||||||||||||
36 | 32 | 2020 | Tsama William v. Attorney General | Uganda | Pending | Victims of landslides are suing the Ugandan government for failing to protect them. | Landslides caused by changing precipitation patterns and extreme weather events | Compensatory damages of 6.8 billion Ugandan shillings for "loss of life, threats to life, destruction of property and infringement of [the plaintiffs'] other fundamental human rights as well as the costs of resettlement to safer areas" | Ugandan Constitution; National Climate Change Policy; National Policy for Disaster Preparedness and Management; National Environment Act | Government | Attorney General; National Environment Management Authority; and Bududa Local Government Council | High Court at Mbale | https://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/tsama-william-and-others-v-ugandas-attorney-general-and-others/ | ||||||||||||||
37 | 33 | 2021 | Anne Arundel County v. BP | U.S. | Dismissed | A county sued fossil fuel companies for causing climate change impacts by producing and promoting fossil fuels while concealing the risks associated with fossil fuels and undermining climate science. | Sea-level rise, flooding, erosion, loss of wetlands and wooded areas, extreme heat, extreme precipitation events, and coastal storms | Compensatory damages; punitive damages; disgorgement of profits; equitable relief, inlcuding abatement of the nuisances; and damages "for injury or loss sustained as the result of a practice prohibited by the Maryland Consumer Protection Act" | Public Nuisance; Private Nuisance; Strict Liability Failure to Warn; Negligent Failure to Warn; Trespass; and the Maryland Consumer Protection Act | Corporation | BP p.l.c.; BP America, Inc.; BP Products North America Inc.; Crown Central LLC; Crown Central New Holdings LLC; Rosemore, Inc.; Chevron Corp.; Chevron U.S.A. Inc.; ExxonMobil Corp.; Exxonmobil Oil Corp.; Royal Dutch Shell p.l.c.; Shell Oil Co.; Citgo Petroleum Corp.; ConocoPhillips; ConocoPhillips Co.; Phillips 66; Phillips 66 Co.; Marathon Oil Co.; Marathon Oil Corp.; Marathon Petroleum Corp.; Speedway LLC; Hess Corp.; Cnx Resources Corp.; Consol Energy Inc.; Consol Marine Terminals LLC; and American Petroleum Institute | Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, Maryland | This case was consolidated with City of Annapolis v. BP. On January 23, 2025, the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County granted the defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and for lack of personal jurisdiction because federal law preempts the state law claims. Reporting indicates the plaintiffs will appeal but none have been filed with the courts tod date. | https://climatecasechart.com/case/anne-arundel-county-v-bp-plc/ | |||||||||||||
38 | 34 | 2021 | City of Annapolis v. BP | U.S. | Dismissed | A city in Maryland sued fossil fuel companies for causing climate change impacts by producing and promoting fossil fuels while concealing the risks associated with fossil fuels and undermining climate science. | Sea-level rise; flooding; extreme weather including extreme heat, extreme precipitation events, and coastal storms | Compensatory damages; equitable relief, including abatement of the nuisances; punitive damages; disgorgement of profits; and damages for "for injury or loss sustained as the result of a practice prohibited by the Maryland Consumer Protection Act" | Public Nuisance; Private Nuisance; Strict Liability Failure to Warn; Negligent Failure to Warn; Trespass; and the Maryland Consumer Protection Act | Corporation | BP p.l.c.; BP America, Inc.; BP Products North America Inc.; Crown Central LLC; Crown Central New Holdings LLC; Rosemore, Inc.; Chevron Corp.; Chevron U.S.A. Inc.; ExxonMobil Corp.; Exxonmobil Oil Corp.; Royal Dutch Shell p.l.c.; Shell Oil Co.; Citgo Petroleum Corp.; ConocoPhillips; ConocoPhillips Co.; Phillips 66; Phillips 66 Co.; Marathon Oil Co.; Marathon Oil Corp.; Marathon Petroleum Corp.; Speedway LLC; Hess Corp.; Cnx Resources Corp.; Consol Energy Inc.; Consol Marine Terminals LLC; and American Petroleum Institute | Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, Maryland | This case was consolidated with Anne Arundel County v. BP. On January 23, 2025, the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County granted the defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and for lack of personal jurisdiction because federal law preempts the state law claims. Reporting indicates the plaintiffs will appeal but none have been filed with the courts to date. | https://climatecasechart.com/case/city-of-annapolis-v-bp-plc/; https://marylandmatters.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Memorandum-Opinion-and-Order-of-Court.pdf; https://marylandmatters.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Order-of-Court-Memorandum-Opinion-re-Motion-to-Dismiss.pdf | |||||||||||||
39 | 35 | 2022 | Platkin v. ExxonMobil | U.S. | Dismissed | The state of New Jersey is suing fossil fuel companies for causing the "environmental, physical, social, and economic consequences" of climate change by producing and promoting fossil fuels while engaging in a deception campaign regarding climate change. | Sea level rise, extreme weather events, flooding, drought, extreme heat, wildfires, habitat loss, species loss, and ocean warming and acidification | Compensatory damages; natural resource damages; punitive damages; injunctive relief, including an order to abate the ongoing nuisance and trespass and an order to cease violating the Consumer Fraud Act (CFA); civil penalties for violations of the CFA; disgorgement of profits; and a declaration that the defendants engaged in unlawful practices under the CFA | Failure to Warn, Negligence, Impairment of Public Trust, Trespass, Public Nuisance, Private Nuisance, and the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act | Corporation | ExxonMobil Corp.; ExxonMobil Oil Corp.; BP p.l.c.; BP America Inc.; Chevron Corp.; Chevron U.S.A. Inc.; ConocoPhillips; ConocoPhillips Co.; Phillips 66; Phillips 66 Co.; Shell p.l.c.; Shell Oil Co.; and American Petroleum Institute | Superior Court of New Jersey | On February 5, 2024, the Superior Court of New Jersey for Mercer County granted the defendants' mption to dismiss for failure to state a claim because federal common law preempts the state law claims. Report indicates the plaintiffs will appeal but none have been filed with the courts to date. | https://climatecasechart.com/case/platkin-v-exxon-mobil-corp/; https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25513841-20250205-njvsbigoil-dismissalorderopinion/ | |||||||||||||
40 | 36 | 2022 | Municipalities of Puerto Rico v. ExxonMobil | U.S. | Pending | A class of Puerto Rican municipalities is suing fossil fuel companies and the American Petroleum Institute for causing and exacerbating hurricanes in 2017 by misrepresenting the dangers of the carbon-based products that they marketed and sold. | Atlantic Hurricanes in 2017 | Compensatory and punitive damages, including damages for wrongful deaths and future costs associated with climate change and disgorgement of profits | Consumer Fraud (common law); Conspiracy to Commit Consumer Law Fraud and Deceptive Businesses Practices; Puerto Rican Rules Against Misleading Practices and Advertisements; Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act; antitrust law; Public Nuisance; Strict Liability Failure to Warn; Strict Liability Design Defect; Negligent Design Defect; Private Nuisance; and Restitution for Unjust Enrichment | Corporation | ExxonMobil Corp.; Shell p.l.c. (F.K.A. Royal Dutch Shell p.l.c.); Chevron Corp; BP p.l.c.; ConocoPhillips; Motiva Enterprises, LLC; Occidental Petroleum (F.K.A. Anadarko Petroleum Corp.); BHP; Arch Resources Inc. (F.K.A. Arch Coal Co.); Rio Tinto p.l.c.; Peabody Energy; XYZ Corp.s 1-100; and John and Jane Does 1-100 | District Court for the District of Puerto Rico | On February 20, 2025, the District Court partially granted and partially denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss. Claims that survived dismissal included RICO Claims, Antitrust Claims, and Parens Patriae Standing. Claims that were dismissed included Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices, Violation of Puerto Rico Rule 7 on Misleading Advertising, Public and Private Nuisance, Strict Liability Claims, Negligent Design Defect, and Unjust Enrichment. | https://climatecasechart.com/case/municipalities-of-puerto-rico-v-exxon-mobil-corp/ | |||||||||||||
41 | 37 | 2022 | Iten ELC Petition No. 007 of 2022 – Legal Advice Centre T/A Kituo cha Sheria & Anor v. Attorney General and 7 Others | Kenya | Pending | Community members living on the shores of Lake Baringo along with an NGO are suing the Kenyan government for violating their rights by failing to support them with minimizing, averting, and repairing climate change impacts. | Flooding | Compensatory damages; an order to resettle flood victims; an order to rehabilitate, relocate, and restore damaged infrastructure; and declaratory judgements that government officials failed to take steps to avert, minimize, and mitigate climate change impacts | Climate Change Act of 2016 | Government | Kenya | Environment and Land Court of Iten | https://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/iten-elc-petition-no-007-of-2022-legal-advice-centre-t-a-kituo-cha-sheria-anor-v-attorney-general-and-7-others/ | ||||||||||||||
42 | 38 | 2022 | County of Maui v. Sunoco | U.S. | Pending | A county is suing fossil fuel companies for causing climate change impacts by promoting and marketing a substantial quanity of fossil fuels while engaging in a campaign to deceive the public about climate change. | Sea level rise, flooding, wildfires, ocean acidification, extreme weather events, loss of freshwater supplies, and harms to terrestrial and marine ecosystems | Compensatory damages; equitable relief, including abatement of the nuisances; punitive damages; and disgorgement of profits | Public Nuisance; Private Nuisance; Strict Liability Failure to Warn; Negligent Failure to Warn; and Trespass | Corporation | Sunoco L.P.; Aloha Petroleum, Ltd.; Aloha Petroleum LLC; ExxonMobil Corp.; ExxonMobil Oil Corp.; Royal Dutch Shell p.l.c.; Shell Oil Co.; Shell Oil Products Co. LLC; Chevron Corp.; Chevron U.S.A. Inc.; BHP Group Limited; BHP Group p.l.c.; BHP Hawaii Inc.; BP p.l.c.; BP America Inc.; Marathon Petroleum Corp.; ConocoPhillips; ConocoPhillips Co.; Phillips 66; Phillips 66 Co.; and Does 1 Through 100 | Circuit Court of Second Circuit, Hawai'i | https://climatecasechart.com/case/county-of-maui-v-sunoco-lp/ | ||||||||||||||
43 | 39 | 2022 | Asmania v. Holcim | Switzerland | Pending | Four residents of the Indonesian island of Pari are suing the cement company Holcim for causing sea level rise by polluting the atmosphere with a substantial quantity of greenhouse gases. | Sea level rise, and the resulting harms | Compensation proportional to the defendant's share of greenhouse gas emissions; a reduction of CO2 emissions by 43% by 2030 and 69% by 2040, relative to 2019 levels; funding for adaptation measures | Article 28 of the Swiss Civil Code (infringement of personal rights) and Article 41 of the Code of Obligations (redress for unjust harm) | Corporation | Holcim | Cantonal Court of Zug | https://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/four-islanders-of-pari-v-holcim/ | ||||||||||||||
44 | 40 | 2022 | NZ Students for Climate Solutions and UK Youth Climate Coalition v. Board of BP | International Criminal Court | Pending | Two youth groups asked the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court to investigate whether senior BP executives committed a crime against humanity by knowingly polluting the atmosphere while sowing doubt about climate change. | Climate change sudden and slow-onset events generally, including severe storms, droughts, fires, floods, glacial retreat, and sea level rise | Collective reparations for victims of climate change, including "monetary compensation, rehabilitation, medical support, victims’ services centers, restitution and repair of property, and symbolic measures such as apologies or memorials" | Rome Statute | Corporation | Board of BP | International Criminal Court | https://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/nz-students-for-climate-solutions-and-uk-youth-climate-coalition-v-board-of-bp/ | ||||||||||||||
45 | 41 | 2023 | Municipality of San Juan v. ExxonMobil | U.S. | Pending | The Puerto Rican city is seeking to hold fossil fuel companies liable for damages caused by hurricanes in 2017 on the basis that the companies produced, promoted and marketed fossil fuels while misrepresenting their dangers. | Hurricanes in September 2017 | Restitution for damages incurred by the city and its citizens, including for wrongful deaths; restitution for current and future costs associated with climate change impacts; disgorgement of profits; and punitive damages | Consumer Fraud (common law); Conspiracy to Commit Consumer Law Fraud and Deceptive Businesses Practices; Puerto Rican Rules Against Misleading Practices and Advertisements; Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act; antitrust law; Public Nuisance; Strict Liability Failure to Warn; Strict Liability Design Defect; Negligent Design Defect; Private Nuisance; and Restitution for Unjust Enrichment | Corporation | ExxonMobil Corp.; Shell p.l.c. (F.K.A. Royal Dutch Shell p.l.c.); Chevron Corp; BP p.l.c.; ConocoPhillips; Motiva Enterprises, LLC; Occident Al Petroleum (F.K.A. Anadarko Petroleum Corp.), BHP; Arch Resources Inc. (F.K.A. Arch Coal Co.); Rio Tinto p.l.c.; Peabody Energy; XYZ Corporations 1-100; and John and Jane Does 1-100 | District Court for the District of Puerto Rico | https://climatecasechart.com/case/municipality-of-san-juan-v-exxon-mobil-corp/ | ||||||||||||||
46 | 42 | 2023 | Multnomah County v. ExxonMobil | U.S. | Pending | A county is suing fossil fuel companies, their trade associations, and the consulting firm McKinsey for causing climate change impacts by producing and promoting fossil fuels while engaging in a campaign to deceive the public about climate change. | Heatwaves, particularly the June 2021 heatwave in the Pacific Northwest; wildfires; and drought | Compensatory damages of $50 million for past harms; an order establishing an abatement fund of at least $50 billion to cover the costs of adaptation; compensatory damages of at least $1.5 billion for harms that will ocur before the county is able to effectively reduce or prevent adverse climate change impacts | Public Nuisance; Negligence; Fraud and Deciet; and Tresspass | Corporation | ExxonMobil Corp.; Shell p.l.c. (F.K.A. Royal Dutch Shell p.l.c.); Chevron Corp.; BP p.l.c.; ConocoPhillips; Motiva Enterprises, LLC; OccidentaPetroleum (F.K.A. Anadarko Petroleum Corp.); Space Age Fuel, Inc.; Valero Energy Corp.; Total Specialties USA, Inc.; Marathon Petroleum Corp.; Peabody Energy Corp.; Koch Industries, Inc.; American Petroleum Institute; Western States Petroleum Association; Mckinsey And Co., Inc.; and Does 1-250 | Circuit Court of Oregon | The complaint is notable for its reliance on multiple event attribution studies, which attribute the 2021 heatwave to climate change. The plaintiffs also rely on trend and source attribution science, which is commonly used in loss and damage litigation. On June 10, 2024, the federal district court for the District of Oregon rejected the companies’ arguments based on federal question jurisdiction and on diversity jurisdiction and adopted a magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations and granted the County’s motion to remand the lawsuit. The case therefore will proceed in state court. | https://climatecasechart.com/case/county-of-multnomah-v-exxon-mobil-corp/ | |||||||||||||
47 | 43 | 2023 | California v. ExxonMobil | U.S. | Pending | This case presents one of the largest requests for compensation for loss and damage caused by climate change. On February 11, 2025, the California Supreme Court denied fossil fuel companies’ petition for review of a CA trial court’s determination that it had personal jurisdiction over the defendants in lawsuits brought. | Extreme heat, drought, wildfires, extreme storms and flooding, crop losses, sea level rise, and disruption to ecosystems and biodiversity | Compensatory damages; punitive and exemplary damages; abatement of the ongoing public nuisance, "including by establishing and contributing to an abatement fund to pay the costs of such abatement;" temporary and permanent equitable relief to prevent further pollution; orders necessary to prevent the defendants from making false or misleading statements or engaging in unfair competition; an order to "restore to any person in interest any money or other property that Defendants may have acquired by violations of the California Business and Professions Code; and civil penalties for Business and Professions Code violations | Public Nuisance; California code authorizing actions for the protection of natural resources; Misleading Advertising; Misleading Marketing; Fraud; Strict Products Liability for Failure to Warn; and Negligent Products Liability for Failure to Warn | Corporation | ExxonMobil Corp.; ExxonMobil Oil Corp.; Shell p.l.c.; Shell USA, Inc.; Shell Oil Products Co. LLC; Chevron Corp.; Chevron U.s.a. Inc.; ConocoPhillips; ConocoPhillips Co.; Phillips 66; Phillips 66 Co.; BP p.l.c.; BP America Inc.; American Petroleum Institute; and Does 1-100 | Superior Court of California | This case presents one of the largest requests for compensation for loss and damage caused by climate change. | https://climatecasechart.com/case/people-v-exxon-mobil-corp/ | |||||||||||||
48 | 44 | 2023 | Greenpeace Italy v. ENI | Italy | Pending | Twelve Italian citizens and two NGOs are suing the fossil fuel company ENI and its majority shareholders (one of which is the Italian government) for causing climate change by polluting the atmosphere with a substantial volume of greenhouse gases. | Flooding, heatwaves, extreme storms, glacial melt, drought, wildfires, sea-level rise, crop losses, and extreme precipitation | Compensatory damages for past and future economic and non-economic harms and an order to adopt an emissions reduction plan that is in line with the Paris Agreement (a reduction of at least 45% by 2030 compared to 2020 levels) | Articles 2043, 2050, and 2051 of the Italian Civil Code; and Articles 2 (right to life) and 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights | Government and Corporation | ENI S.p.A.; Italian Ministry of Economy and Finance; and Cassa Depositi e Prestiti S.p.A. | Civil Court of Rome | https://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/greenpeace-italy-et-al-v-eni-spa-the-italian-ministry-of-economy-and-finance-and-cassa-depositi-e-prestiti-spa/ | ||||||||||||||
49 | 45 | 2023 | Makah Indian Tribe v. ExxonMobil | U.S. | Pending | The indigenous Makah Tribe is suing fossil fuel companies for causing climate change impacts by misleading consumers and the public about the dangers of using fossil fuels. | Sea level rise, extreme precipitation, flooding, heatwaves, droughts, wildfires, ocean acidification, degradation of air and water quality, and loss of habitat and species | Compensatory damages and an order to abate the nuisance, including by funding an abatement fund to be managed by the Tribe for remediation and adaptation | Public nuisance; Product Liability for Failure to Warn | Corporation | ExxonMobil Corp.; ExxonMobil Oil Corp.; BP p.l.c.; BP America Inc.; Chevron Corp.; Chevron USA, Inc.; Shell p.l.c.; Shell Oil Co.; ConocoPhillips; ConocoPhillips Co.; Phillips 66; and Phillips 66 Co. | Superior Court of Washington | This case mirrors a separate case brought by the Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe, which the Shoalwater Bay Tribe filed on the same day in the same court. The complaints in these two cases are nearly identical. On March 26, 2025 the US District Court granted the motion on remand, maintaing the case in state court. | https://climatecasechart.com/case/makah-indian-tribe-v-exxon-mobil-corp/ | |||||||||||||
50 | 46 | 2023 | Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe v. ExxonMobil | U.S. | Pending | The indigenous Shoalwater Bay Tribe is suing fossil fuel companies for causing climate change impacts by misleading consumers and the public about the dangers of using fossil fuels. | Sea level rise, extreme precipitation, flooding, heatwaves, droughts, wildfires, ocean acidification, degradation of air and water quality, and loss of habitat and species | Compensatory damages and an order to abate the nuisance, including by funding an abatement fund to be managed by the Tribe for remediation and adaptation | Public nuisance; Product Liability for Failure to Warn | Corporation | ExxonMobil Corp.; ExxonMobil Oil Corp.; BP p.l.c.; BP America Inc.; Chevron Corp.; Chevron USA, Inc.; Shell p.l.c.; Shell Oil Co.; ConocoPhillips; ConocoPhillips Co.; Phillips 66; and Phillips 66 Co. | Superior Court of Washington | This case mirrors a separate case brought by the Makah Indian Tribe, which the Makah Tribe filed on the same day in the same court. The complaints in these two cases are nearly identical. On March 26, 2025, the federal district court for the Western District of Washington granted the Makah Indian Tribe’s and Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe’s motions to remand their climate change cases against fossil fuel companies to state court. | https://climatecasechart.com/case/shoalwater-bay-indian-tribe-v-exxon-mobil-corp/ | |||||||||||||
51 | 47 | 2024 | c (The Farmer Case) | Belgium | Pending | A Belgian farmer is suing TotalEnergies for causing damage to his farm by polluting the atmosphere with a substantial volume of greenhouse gases. | Heataves, droughts, extreme precipitation | A declaratory judgement recognizing that the plaintiff suffered damage from climate change; compensatory damages; and an order requiring the defendant TotalEnergies to halt investment in new fossil fuel projects, reduce emissions by more than 60% by 2030 compared with 2023 levels, and progressively reduce oil and gas production. | Articles 1382 and 1383 of the former Belgian Civil Code | Corporation | TotalEnergies | Commercial Court of Tournai | https://www.thefarmercase.be/en/the-court-case/ https://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/hugues-falys-fian-greenpeace-ligue-des-droits-humains-v-totalenergies-the-farmer-case/ | ||||||||||||||
52 | 48 | 2024 | City of Chicago v. BP | U.S. | Pending | The city of Chicago is suing fossil fuel companies and the American Petroleum Institute for causing climate change impacts by misleading consumers and the public about climate change. | Extreme heat, warmer winter temperatures, extreme precipitation, and flooding | Compensatory damages; equitable relief, including abatement of the nuisances; damages and penalties for violations of the Chicago Consumer Protection Act; and disgorgement of profits | Strict Products Liability for Failure to Warn; Negligent Products Liability for Failure to Warn; Negligence; Public Nuisance; Private Nuisance; Civil Conspiracy; Unjust Enrichment; and the Municipal Code of Chicago | Corporation | BP P.L.C; BP America Inc.; BP Products North America Inc.; Chevron Corp.; Chevron U.S.A. Inc.; ConocoPhillips Co.; ConocoPhillips; Phillips 66 Co.; Phillips 66; ExxonMobil Corp.; ExxonMobil Oil Corp.; Shell Oil Products Co. LLC; Shell p.l.c.; Shell USA, Inc.; and American Petroleum Institute | Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois | https://climatecasechart.com/case/city-of-chicago-v-bp-plc/ | ||||||||||||||
53 | 49 | 2024 | Bucks County v. BP | U.S. | Pending | A county is suing fossil fuel comppanies and the American Petroleum Institute for causing climate change impacts by conducting a "disinformation campaign" about climate change. | Flooding; hurricanes; severe storms; extreme precipitation; sea level rise; and extreme heat | Compensatory damages for past and future harms; punitive damages; equitable relief, including abatement of the nuisances; and disgorgement of profits | Strict Products Liability for Failure to Warn; Negligent Products Liability for Failure to Warn; Negligence; Public Nuisance; Private Nuisance; Trespass; and Civil Conspiracy | Corporation | BP P.L.C; BP America Inc.; BP Products North America Inc.; Chevron Corp.; Chevron U.S.A. Inc.; ConocoPhillips Co.; ConocoPhillips; Phillips 66 Co.; Phillips 66; ExxonMobil Corp.; ExxonMobil Oil Corp.; Shell Oil Products Co. LLC; Shell p.l.c.; Shell USA, Inc.; and American Petroleum Institute | Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County, Pennslyvania | In its complaint, the county provides a detailed account of damages it has suffered. For example, the county describes how a storm brought by Hurrican Ida caused more than $12.5 million of damage to public infrastructure. | https://climatecasechart.com/case/bucks-county-v-bp-plc/ | |||||||||||||
54 | 50 | 2024 | This is one of the first cases to seek criminal liability for harms caused by climate change. Each of the individual plaintiffs experienced direct, personal harm as a result of extreme weather events. The plaintiffs cite attribution science connecting each event to climate change. However, on February 20, 2025, the French public prosecutor dismissed the criminal complaint against TotalEnergies saying that, despite TotalEnergies’ responsibility for GHG emissions, the current criminal laws do not permit prosecution for such activities. | France | Dismissed | Eight victims of extreme weather disasters and three NGOs filed a criminal complaint against the directors and main shareholders of TotalEnergies for causing climate change impacts through its substantial greenhouse gas emissions. | Cyclone Idai, Zimbabwe 2019; flooding, Belgium 2021; Storm Alex, France 2020; super typhoon Rai (or Odette), Philippines 2021; heatwave and forest fires, Greece 2021; extreme rainfall and flooding, Pakistan 2021; bushfires, Australia 2019-2020 | Prison sentences (ranging from 1 to 5 years) and fines (ranging from 15,000€ to 150,000€) | French Criminal Code (Involuntary manslaughter, deliberately endangering the lives of others, damaging biodiversity, and neglecting to address a disaster) | Corporation | Board of TotalEnergies; CEO of TotalEnergies; main shareholders of TotalEnergies | Paris Criminal Court | This is one of the first cases to seek criminal liability for harms caused by climate change. Each of the individual plaintiffs experienced direct, personal harm as a result of extreme weather events. The plaintiffs cite attribution science connecting each event to climate change. However, the French public prosecutor dismissed the criminal complaint against TotalEnergies saying that, despite TotalEnergies’ responsibility for GHG emissions, the current criminal laws do not permit prosecution for such activities. | https://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/bloom-and-others-v-totalenergies/ | |||||||||||||
55 | 51 | 2024 | Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico v. ExxonMobil | U.S. | Pending | The commonwealth of Puerto Rico is suing fossil fuel companies for causing climate change impacts by producing fossil fuels and misleading the public about the dangers of these fuels. | Hurricanes; sea level rise; changes to hydrological cycle; extreme precipitation; flooding; heatwaves; drought; ocean acidification; destruction of coral reefs and mangrove forests; degradation of air and water quality; and loss of habitats and species | Compensatory damages of at least $1 billion; punitive damages of at least $1 billion; an order requiring defendants to contribute to a fund to mitigate the ongoing nuisance defendants caused, including by paying the costs of "strengthening public infrastructure against sea level rise and storm damage, restoring natural resources, funding local climate resilience measures, and rebuilding natural barriers to protect communities from sea level rise and weather-influenced storms; and damages resulting from violations of the Antitrust and Restraint of Trade Act; and "permanently enjoin Defendants from engaging in the unlawful practices described in the Complaint" | Puerto Rico Environmental Public Policy Law; Negligence; Strict Products Liability for Failure to Warn; Puerto Rico Punitive Damages Law; Puerto Rico Antitrust and Restraint of Trade Act | Corporation | ExxonMobil Corp.; BP p.l.c.; Chevron Corp.; Chevron Phillips Chemical Puerto Rico Core, LLC; ConocoPhillips; Shell p.l.c.; Stations Managers of Puerto Rico, Inc.; TotalEnergies; and Y TotalEnergies Marketing PR Corp. | Tribunal de Primera Instancia | https://climatecasechart.com/case/estado-libre-asociado-de-puerto-rico-v-exxon-mobil-corp/ | ||||||||||||||
56 | 52 | 2024 | State v. BP p.l.c. | U.S. | Pending | The State of Maine is suing fossil fuel companies and the American Petroleum Institute for causing "devastating climate change impacts" by defendants' "successful clilmate deception campaign." | Sea level rise, storm surge, extreme high tides and attendant flooding, warming and acidification of Gulf of Maine waters, more frequent and intense precipitation events and flooding, more “dangerously hot days,” increased transmission of vector-borne diseases, and reduced air quality, as well as economic threats to industries such as fishing, aquaculture, forestry, and tourism. | Compensatory and punitive damages; any other damages as permitted by law; civil penalties under the Unfair Trade Practices Act; disgorgement of profits; equitable relief, including abatement of the nuisance (such as through creation of a fund to pay for adaptation, mitigation, and resilience measures); other declaratory and injunctive relief; and costs, including attorney fees, courts costs, and other litigation expenses. | Negligence, public nuisance, private nuisance, common law trespass, civil aiding and abetting, statutory nuisance, violation of the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act, and strict liability for failure to warn under 14 M.R.S. § 221 | Corporation | BP P.L.C; BP America Inc.; BP Energy Company; BP Energy Retail LLC; BP Products North America Inc.; Chevron Corp.; Chevron U.S.A. Inc.; ExxonMobil Corp.; ExxonMobil Oil Corp.; Equilon Enterprises LLC d/b/a Shell Oil Products US; Shell Trading (US) Co.; Shell p.l.c.; Shell USA, Inc.; Sunoco LP; and American Petroleum Institute | Maine Superior Court | https://climatecasechart.com/case/state-v-bp-plc/ | ||||||||||||||
57 | 53 | 2024 | Town of Carrboro v. Duke Energy Corp. | U.S. | Pending | A town is suing an energy company for climate change-related damages that were allegedly caused by the company's "knowing deception campaign concerning the causes and dangers posed by the climate crisis." | Extreme temperatures, riverine and urban flooding, hurricanes, and more frequent and intense extreme precipitation. | Damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees. | Public nuisance, private nuisance, trespass, negligence, and gross negligence | Corporation | Duke Energy Corp. | North Carolina Superior Court | https://climatecasechart.com/case/town-of-carrboro-v-duke-energy-corp/ | ||||||||||||||
58 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
59 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
60 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
61 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
62 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
63 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
64 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
65 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
66 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
67 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
68 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
69 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
70 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
71 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
72 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
73 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
74 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
75 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
76 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
77 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
78 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
79 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
80 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
81 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
82 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
83 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
84 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
85 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
86 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
87 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
88 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
89 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
90 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
91 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
92 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
93 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
94 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
95 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
96 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
97 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
98 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
99 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
100 |