The court affirms the dismissal of a landowner's due process and equal protection claims against a zoning board that denied the landowner's application for a building permit, but reverses the denial of the landowner's motion to amend the complaint to include a First Amendment retal

The court affirms a district court decision that a water district's operation of a pump station without a national pollution discharge elimination system (NPDES) permit violates the Clean Water Act (CWA) but vacates the court's injunction prohibiting the district from operating the stat

The court dismisses all of a hazardous waste transshipment company's equal protection, due process, and takings claims against the state of Connecticut, the Connecticut environmental agency, and the individual agency head for denial of a hazardous waste transshipment permit.

The court affirms a district court holding that a village's sign ordinance did not violate the First Amendment as it contained permissible restrictions on the number, size, and location of signs on residential property, the duration for which signs may remain on residential property, and the

The court holds that an Arizona district court erred in determining that it lacked jurisdiction to hear a quiet title action concerning land along the Colorado River and in fixing title to the land on the basis of river movements that occurred prior to 1905 when the United States patented the dis

The court holds that the U.S.

The court holds that although conservation officers conducted a search and seizure without a warrant and within the curtilage of individuals' home, the officers enjoyed qualified immunity.

The court upholds a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Appeals Board decision finding a dental supplies distribution company liable under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) for distributing unregistered pesticides.

The court holds that a pollution exclusion clause did not bar an insurer's duty to provide coverage to a city power agency sued by an asbestos removal company for additional remuneration under an asbestos removal contract.

The court affirms in part and reverses in part a district court holding that the U.S.