The court holds that the district court lacks jurisdiction under the citizen suit provision of the Clean Air Act, §304(a), over a fuel refiner's claim that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) failed to perform a nondiscretionary duty in refusing to recognize a lead credit purchase. The court ...

The court holds that the district court lacked authority under $105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code to require a railway to apply for expedited approval under the New Jersey Environmental Cleanup Responsibility Act (ECRA) to allow a debtor's trustees to convey real property to the railway. The debtor is a...

The court holds that a county landfill that imposed on imported waste rates that were higher than those imposed on locally generated waste did not violate the Commerce Clause or a waste-processing facility's due process and equal protection rights. A Pennsylvania-based waste processing facility rece...

The court generally upholds the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) 1987 second codification rule implementing the 1984 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Amendments. The court first holds that EPA acted within its authority in imposing RCRA §3004(u) corrective action requirements ...

The court assesses a $2,778,000 civil penalty against the owners and operators of a landfill for violations of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and orders defendants to perform corrective action and permanently close the landfill. The court first holds that it has jurisdiction over ...

The court holds that an Environmental Protection Agency notice of violation is not a final agency action subject to judicial review under Clean Air Act §307(b).
Counsel for PetitionerCharles F. AdamsStoel, Rives, Boley, Jones & Grey900 SW Fifth Ave., Ste. 2300, Portland OR 97204-1268(503) 224-...

The court holds that operation of the Village Creek Flood Control Project near Taylor Bay, Arkansas, constitutes a nuisance. The Taylor Bay Protective Association brought suit against the improvement districts that operate the project and federal agencies that regulate the project, after problems wi...

The court holds that a citizen whose health, recreational, aesthetic, and environmental interests are directly and adversely affected by a municipality's allegedly illegal effluent discharges has standing under §505 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA). The court also rules that FWPCA...

The court holds that a plaintiff who prevailed in a Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) citizen suit is entitled to reasonable attorney fees and costs. Although the municipality originally agreed in a consent decree to pay reasonable attorney fees and costs, the municipality subsequently arg...

The court holds that the citizen suit provision of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), §505, grants jurisdiction over suits alleging continuing permit violations at the same facility, even if not of the same specific permit parameters. The Supreme Court had held in Gwaltney of Smithfie...