Delta Construction Company v. EPA

<> Delta Construction Company v. EPA – 4/24/15. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, Case No. 11-1428, consolidated with 11-1441, 12-1427 & 13-1076. Petitioners attack the standards on procedural grounds, and an overlapping group challenges EPA's truck standards. The Appeals Court rules that the petitions for review are dismissed. Court Upholds Landmark Greenhouse Gas and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Trucks and Buses

WildEarth Guardians v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife

<> WildEarth Guardians v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife - 4/17/15. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, Case No. 12-1508 & 12-1509. Environmental groups assert that the Service violated the Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Endangered Species Act  when it  conveyed strip of land for the construction of a parkway.       The district court affirmed the Service's actions and the Appeals Court affirmed its decision.

Hawkes Co., Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

<> Hawkes Co., Inc.  v.  U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - 4/10/15. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, Case No. 13-3067. The Corps' issuance of an Approved Jurisdiction Determination that plaintiffs' property constitutes "waters of the United States" within the meaning of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, thereby requiring plaintiffs to obtain a permit to discharge dredged or filled materials into the "navigable waters, was a final agency action for purposes of the Administrative Procedure Act, and the district court erred in dismissing the case for lack of a final agency action.

Coalition for Responsible Regulation, et al., v. EPA

<> Coalition for Responsible Regulation, et al., v. EPA - 4/10/15. In the U.S. Court of Appeals D.C. Circuit, Case No. 09-1322. Order issued that this court's judgment filed June 26, 2012, be amended in accordance with the Supreme Court's decision. See UARG v. EPA, 134 S. Ct. at 2449 (affirming in part and reversing in part). Appeals Court Upholds EPA Authority to Require Carbon Pollution Limits at Power Plants, Factories and Other Large Industrial Facilities Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. U.S. EPA – Original 6/26/12 decision & 12/20/12 denial for en banc rehearing. Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 134 S. Ct. 2427 (2014)

Gulf Restoration Network, et al v. Gina McCarthy (USEPA)

<> Gulf Restoration Network, et al v. Gina McCarthy (USEPA) - 4/7/15. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, Case No.13-31214. In the case a group of environmental organizations petitioned the EPA to "use its powers [pursuant to section 1313(c)(4)(B)] to control nitrogen and phosphorous pollution" within the Mississippi River Basin and the Northern Gulf of Mexico.      The Appeals Court ruled that it had jurisdiction and that U.S. EPA was not required to make a "necessity determination."

The Hopi Tribe v. US

<> The Hopi Tribe v. US - 4/2/15. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, Case No. 2014-5018. The Hopi Tribe filed suit against the United States in the Court of Federal Claims seeking damages to cover the cost of providing safe drinking water on the Hopi Reservation.      The Federal Circuit ruled, "We understand that water quality on parts of the Hopi Reservation is unacceptable, due in part to insufficient funds for new water infrastructure. But the Supreme Court's decisions are controlling in this case. Because the Hopi Tribe has not identified a money-mandating obligation that the United States allegedly violated, we must affirm the Court of Federal Claims' dismissal of this suit for lack of jurisdiction under the Indian Tucker Act."

AmeriPride Services, Inc. v. Texas Eastern Overseas, Inc.

<> AmeriPride Services, Inc. v. Texas Eastern Overseas, Inc. - 4/2/15. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 12-17245. The Panel vacated the district court's judgment after trial and agreeing with the First Circuit, and declining to follow the reasoning of the Seventh Circuit, the panel held that in allocating liability to a nonsettling defendant in a CERCLA contribution action, the district court is not required to apply either the proportionate share approach of the Uniform Comparative Fault Act or the pro tanto approach of the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act, but rather has discretion to determine the most equitable method of accounting for settlements between private parties.