Maryland's highest court held that an environmental group has standing to challenge the state environmental agency's issuance of a nontidal wetlands permit for a development project.

A California appellate court held that the California Coastal Commission has appellate jurisdiction over a coastal development subdivision project. A county's approval of a "principal permitted use" development within a coastal zone is not appealable to the Commission.

A district court denied EPA's motion to dismiss an environmental group's lawsuit challenging the Agency's administrative stay of two rules setting forth hazardous air emission standards for boilers and commercial and industrial solid waste incineration units.

The Ninth Circuit reversed a lower court decision invalidating the U.S. Forest Service's 2007 travel management plan for parts of the Lewis and Clark National Forest.

The Third Circuit vacated a lower court decision dismissing, on grounds of abstention, environmental groups' RCRA and CWA citizens suit in which they sought an injunction requiring the current and prior owners of a contaminated site to remediate contaminated sediments in the Raritan River.

The Seventh Circuit held that a landowner who sold a large parcel of floodplain property to a conservation group may not ask a local drainage district to indemnify him for damages he incurred in an underlying breach of warranty suit stemming from petroleum contamination on the property.

A district court held that EPA's Multi-Criteria Integrated Resource (MCIR) Assessment and Enhanced Coordination (EC) Process, adopted to screen mountaintop mining permits, violates the CWA and the APA.

A district court held that a property owner may go forward with its RCRA claims against a former tenant that stored toluene in a building on the site. The owner demolished all but the basement floor of the building.

A district court granted in part and denied in part motions to dismiss various individuals' personal injury claims stemming from their exposure to oil and dispersants following the Deepwater Horizon disaster.

A district court held that an oil company cannot be held liable for punitive damages in a property owner's case against it for soil and groundwater contamination.