This is the lead that I'll be referencing.
"A federal judge in Vermont gave the first legal endorsement yesterday to rules in California, being copied in 13 other states, that intend to reduce greenhouse gases emitted by automobiles and light trucks."
The lead is entirely factual; everything is covered in the first sentence. Who? California and 13 other states. What? Those 14 states are allowed to have greenhouse gas emission standards for automobiles and light trucks. Where? Well, once again, California and 13 other states. When? Although it says "yesterday" on the website, right under the headline, it says that the story was published on September 13, 2007.
It tells me everything that I want to know about the story without actually telling me everything that I want to know. In other words, it gives me enough background information to tell me what I should expect when reading the story; however, it doesn't tell me everything that went on. Later in the story, I read about many other vital details that give me a full understanding of the story. A few examples of information that isn't important enough to be in the first sentence, but still important enough to be placed in the story:
"The ruling follows a decision by the United States Supreme Court in April that the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to regulate heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide as air pollutants. The ruling in Vermont explicitly endorses the idea that California has the right to set its own regulations on the gases, and that other states, like Vermont, have the right to follow its lead."
"In 2002, California adopted the first state law requiring auto manufacturers to begin reducing emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases. In 2004, it set standards for emission reductions.
Vermont adopted the same standards, as did other states, including Connecticut, New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania.
Automakers sued to block the standards in Vermont and California. The Vermont lawsuit led to a trial in May and Judge Sessions’s ruling on Wednesday; the California case is pending."