/usr/local/projects/usca/indexes/USCA-ALL.index Search the Opinions of the US Circuit Courts
skip navigation


Search the opinions of the US Circuit Courts of Appeal

Search for:
use and, or, not -- and is default
* acts as wildcard, phrases in "double quotes"
This collection has many hidden limitations. To find out what you're really searching, see the disclaimer .

Your query pollution returned 1048 results.

Your search has returned a large number of results. You might want to consider using additional terms to narrow it.

1000 OPINION/ORDER
An Order was entered on behalf of this panel denying Northbrook's petition for rehearing. Northbrook's first contention is that the panel opinion ignored
967 OPINION/ORDER
A jury found Chemical Leaman was entitled to partial coverage under several policies. Therefore we conclude the district court's jury instructions were proper. We will affirm the district court's holdings on the pollution exclusion clause. We also conclude that the exclusion of certain evidence was within the sound discretion of the district court. The ponds were intended to purify rinsewater by filtering out contaminants as the water seeped into the soil. An Inspector with the New Jersey Division of Fish Game & Wildlife informed Chemical Leaman that its water treatment system was
954 OPINION/ORDER
Presiding *Wayne Nastri is substituted for his predecessor. P. 43(c)(2). **Christie Whitman is substituted for her predecessor as Administrator. NASTRI CWA 303(d) requires the states to identify and compile a list of waters for which certain effluent limitations are not stringent enough to implement the applicable water quality standards for such waters. 303(d)(1)(A). Point sources of pollution are those from a discrete conveyance. Nonpoint sources of pollution are non discrete sources. The Garcia River is polluted only by nonpoint sources. The precise statutory question before us is whether the phrase are not stringent enough triggers the identification requirement both for waters as to which effluent limitations apply but do not suffice to attain water quality standards and for waters as to which effluent limitations do not apply at all to the pollution sources impairing the water. Discrete though it is. Provide concrete direction concerning how those standards were to be met in the foreseeable future.
952 MESA OIL, INC. V. INS. CO. OF NORTH AMERICA

This is a diversity case involving a dispute over insurance coverage. While it was insured by INA. Ekotek's facility in Utah was subsequently declared a Superfund site. Mesa was identified by the EPA as a Potentially Responsible Party (
950 OPINION/ORDER
We hold that the EPA did have the authority to consider jeopardy to listed species in making the transfer decision. The EPA's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The state transfer provisions of § 1342(b) have proven popular. Arizona was the forty fifth state to obtain pollution permitting authority from the EPA. If the Administrator determines that the state is not following those standards. Each agency must
919 OPINION/ORDER
Primrose was insured during the time it operated the Senns' lease by three insurance companies: (1) Chubb Insurance Group (
911 OPINION/ORDER
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. We remand to the district court so that it may consider the scope of the pollution exclusion clause as well as the other exclusions which Auto Owners argued are applicable in its declaratory judgment action. The AutoOwners policy requires the insurer to pay those sums Whitewood is legally obligated to pay as a result of
898 OPINION/ORDER
A Maryland partnership in which Kenneth Neil was a general partner owned and operated the Holiday Inn for some time. The stated policy period was August 1. Which is defined to include: bodily injury . . . arising out of operations . . . but only if the bodily injury . . . occurs after such operations have been completed or abandoned and occurs away from premises owned by or rented to the Named Insured. This exclusion states: [T]he insurance provided in this Section of the Policy DOES NOT APPLY TO: a) The contamination of any environment by pollutants that are introduced at any time. It is hereby understood that the following meanings apply to various terms used in the foregoing: a. It is hereby understood and agreed that this Pollution Exclusion does not apply to
882 OPINION/ORDER
A majority nonetheless held that the Coal Remining regulations were invalid on grounds not raised by Petitioners or addressed by the EPA. Regulatory Landscape The United States is divided into three major coal producing regions. There have been dramatic changes in the domestic production of coal due to environmental concerns and market demands. The EPA estimates that there are currently over 1.1 million acres of abandoned coal mine lands in the United States. Which have produced over 9. There are two principal pieces of federal legislation governing water pollution caused by coal mines. Was enacted on August 3. The SMCRA is administered by the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (
880 OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs were Henry V. With him on the briefs were Daniel R. Were on the briefs for the State Petitioners in 97 1440 and 97 1441. Kaplan on the brief were Lois J. Were on the brief for intervenor Massachusetts and New Jersey. C. Boyden Gray and Alan Charles Raul were on the brief for Amicus Curiae Congressman Tom Bliley in 97 1441. With them on the briefs were David H. With him on the briefs was David S. With him on the briefs were Harold P. Edgar on the brief were Lois J. Were on the brief for intervenors Massachusetts and New Jersey. C. Boyden Gray and Alan Charles Raul were on the brief for amicus curiae Senator Orrin Hatch in 97 1440. Numerous petitions for review have been filed for each rule. That EPA should have considered the environmental damage likely to result from the NAAQS' financial impact on the Abandoned Mine Recla mation Fund. We agree with petitioners that EPA's choice of PM10 as the indicator for coarse particulate matter was arbitrary and capricious. Although the factors EPA uses in determining the degree of public health concern associated with different levels of ozone and PM are reason able.
863 OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: The Placer County Air Pollution Control District (
856 OPINION/ORDER
Opinion by Judge Boochever *Christine Todd Whitman is substituted for her predecessor. Have been the source of much litigation and administrative revision. Including asthma sufferers who are particularly sensitive to particulate pollution. An area that does not meet the national ambient air quality standards for PM 10 is classified as either a
856 OPINION/ORDER
Nereyda Garcia and Sherin & Lodgen LLP were on brief. David Chaffin and Hare & Chaffin were on brief. Berry & Howard were on brief. Eaton and Sloane & Walsh were on brief. Other environmental laws have pitted businesses against their insurers in fierce disputes over who will bear these costs. That is the case here. Underlying this lawsuit is the cleanup of five hazardous waste sites. Millipore Corporation was one of the sources of waste at the sites. Was a defendant in several actions alleging violations of federal and state environmental laws. The primary issue here is whether the district court erred in entering summary judgment for the insurers (and then denying reconsideration) on the ground that none of Millipore's CERCLA liability is covered under any of the comprehensive general liability (
856 OPINION/ORDER
Opinion by Judge Boochever *Christine Todd Whitman is substituted for her predecessor. Have been the source of much litigation and administrative revision. Including asthma sufferers who are particularly sensitive to particulate pollution. An area that does not meet the national ambient air quality standards for PM 10 is classified as either a
824 NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY V. ANTOINETTE RICHARDSON

Sutton argued the cause for appellant.
824 P:\DOCS\E-DOS\8-30\05-3594 ADVANCE TERRAZZO V. CONTINENTAL CASUALTY OPN 8.23.WPD

United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. 1 and others after James Fanjoy was allegedly exposed to an excessive amount of carbon monoxide gas released from Advance Terrazzo's propane powered grinders. Was working on drywall at the construction site. Carbon monoxide emitted from Advance Terrazzo's propane powered grinders caused him to fall and sustain injuries that have left him physically and mentally impaired. The complaint alleges that Advance Terrazzo was negligent in failing to provide proper ventilation when operating its floor grinders and failed in its duty to properly monitor the work environment for carbon monoxide gas. The policy specifically excludes coverage for bodily injury or property damage caused by pollution in what is referred to as the absolute pollution exclusion: f. Site or location on which any insured or any contractors or subcontractors working directly or indirectly on any insured's behalf are performing operations: (i) If the pollutants are brought on or to the premises.
815 OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief was Robert J. With her on the brief was David P. Which is common in commercial comprehensive general liability insurance policies. Courts around the country have divided in construing the scope of the pollution exclusion clause. We are mindful that a
809 OPINION/ORDER
Sewers are also used on occasion as an easy (if illicit) means for the direct discharge of unwanted contaminants. They are subject to the controls of the Clean Water Act. 578 ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE CENTER v. The Problem of Stormwater Runoff Stormwater runoff is one of the most significant sources of water pollution in the nation. SediThe
798 OPINION/ORDER
793 OPINION/ORDER
793 OPINION/ORDER
File Name: 99a0403p.06 injured third party was in the immediate vicinity of the harmful product at the time of injury. The district court's judgment is hereby AFFIRMED. Kopliku was covered by a commercial general liability (
793 98-1075 -- BLACKHAWK-CENTRAL CITY SANITATION DISTRICT V. AMERICAN GUARANTEE AND LIABILITY INSURANCE CO. -- 04/11/2000

The action was originally filed in Colorado state court but. Was removed to federal court pursuant to diversity of citizenship jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
787 98-1075 -- BLACKHAWK-CENTRAL CITY SANITATION DISTRICT V. AMERICAN GUARANTEE AND LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY -- 05/31/2000

Circuit Judges.

787 OPINION/ORDER
Alves II and Gorham & Gorham were on brief for appellant. Parks & Whitman were on brief for appellee. 2 Laura A. We will have followed a sizeable number of the courts that have considered the issue. The Claims Warwick is in the business of dyeing. There is no evidence. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (
783 OPINION/ORDER
Certain aspects of North River's coverage were limited by a pollution exclusion outlined in the policy jacket. It attempted to prove to the district court that the Commissioner had in 1989 approved a set of forms that included a
783 OPINION/ORDER
Senior Circuit Judge: Appellees Harv Forsgren and the United States Forest Service (
763 OPINION/ORDER
With them on the briefs were Thomas F. Bernard and Jeremy Kyle Kinner were on the brief of amici curiae Indigenous Environmental Network. With him on the brief were Thomas L. With him on the briefs were Alan F. Nick Goldstein were on the brief of industry intervenors in support of respondent. Henderson were on the brief of amicus curiae Washington Legal Foundation in support of respondent. Wolff were on the brief of amicus curiae John D. Circuit Judge: Petitioners are twelve states. They are opposed by the Environmental Protection Agency as respondent. The controversy is about EPA's denial of a petition asking it to regulate carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gas emissions from new motor 5 vehicles under § 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act. EPA concluded that it did not have statutory authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles and that. Have jurisdiction over citizen suits to compel EPA to perform nondiscretionary acts or duties. 42 U.S.C. § 7604(a)(2). We have jurisdiction only if EPA thereby engaged in
763 CITY OF DELRAY BEACH V. AGRICULTURAL INS. CO.

This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > City of Delray Beach v. Transco Syndicate's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and California Union Insurance Company's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.<p> I.<p> <p> The factual and procedural background of the motions for summary judgment filed in this matter are not in dispute. Three of the defendant insurance companies here have filed motions for summary judgment arguing that as a matter of law their insurance policies do not provide coverage for the cause of action in the underlying state case. California Union issued one policy that is at issue in this case. 1988.<p> Transco Syndicate and California Union have filed separate motions for summary judgment asking this Court to find. Plaintiff has responded that Transco Syndicate and California Union are liable on the following independent grounds: (1) the pollution exclusion clauses contained in the comprehensive general liability insurance policies do not preclude coverage to the insureds for the environmental contamination that occurred in this case. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19954284.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Transco Syndicate's is GRANTED and California Union Insurance Company's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. I. The factual and procedural background of the motions for summary judgment filed in this matter are not in dispute. Three of the defendant insurance companies here have filed motions for summary judgment arguing that as a matter of law their insurance policies do not provide coverage for the cause of action in the underlying state case. California Union issued one policy that is at issue in this case. Transco Syndicate and California Union have filed separate motions for summary judgment asking this Court to find. Syndicate and California Plaintiff has responded that Transco Union are liable on the following independent grounds: (1) the pollution exclusion clauses contained in the comprehensive general liability insurance policies do not preclude coverage to the insureds for the environmental contamination that occurred in this case. The standard to be applied in reviewing summary judgment motions is stated unambiguously in Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: The judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june96/95-4284.opa.html">CITY OF DELRAY BEACH V. AGRICULTURAL INS. CO.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>City of Delray Beach v. Transco Syndicate's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and California Union Insurance Company's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.<p> I.<p> <p> The factual and procedural background of the motions for summary judgment filed in this matter are not in dispute. Three of the defendant insurance companies here have filed motions for summary judgment arguing that as a matter of law their insurance policies do not provide coverage for the cause of action in the underlying state case. California Union issued one policy that is at issue in this case. 1988.<p> Transco Syndicate and California Union have filed separate motions for summary judgment asking this Court to find. Plaintiff has responded that Transco Syndicate and California Union are liable on the following independent grounds: (1) the pollution exclusion clauses contained in the comprehensive general liability insurance policies do not preclude coverage to the insureds for the environmental contamination that occurred in this case. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/03/03-20542.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. Because we find the pollution exclusion is unambiguous and clearly barred both coverage of and defense costs for the claims. USL is a provider of integrated liquid waste management services. Pollutants include (but are not limited to) any solid. Waste includes (but is not limited to) materials to be recycled. This investigation was based on information about City Environmental's USL owned Detroit. A confidential source alleged that USL was knowingly discharging liquid hazardous waste into Detroit's sewer system and illegally transporting and disposing of hazardous waste. In August 1999 trading of USL's stock was Analysts downgraded USL's stock rating. USL announced its 1999 earnings would be substantially reduced due to the closing and cleanup costs at the Detroit plant.1 After the underlying suits were filed. Contending the claims raised in the suits were covered by the Policy. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/96311E1BD528E6CC88256DA2005952F9/$file/0070014.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Are vacated. They are replaced by the Opinion and Dissent filed today. The petitions for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. The clerk is instructed not to accept for filing any new petitions for rehearing or petitions for rehearing en banc in this case. 13774 ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE CENTER v. Sewers are also used on occasion as an easy (if illicit) means for the direct discharge of unwanted contaminants. They are subject to the controls of the Clean Water Act. EPA preserved The </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/dec95/93-6143.html">MACKLANBURG-DUNCAN CO. V. AETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY CO.<BR></A><BR> Appellants claimed insurance companies that had sold umbrella liability or comprehensive general liability ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/09/982491P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who commenced this action seeking a declaratory judgment they have no duty to defend or indemnify KCOM because of the absolute pollution exclusion in their comprehensive general liability ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0347p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> BACKGROUND The Clean Water Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-2073.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Radler & Kremer were on brief. Inc. were on brief. An engineer of the Providence and Worcester Railroad Company moved a group of railroad tank cars while one car was still attached to a chemical storage tank at a manufacturing facility in Cumberland. The facility is located on the banks of the Blackstone River. A hole was torn in the bottom of the tank and the contents. No further action was taken. The state's decision to test in this manner was an advanced one for the times. Those tests and subsequent tests showed that the wellfields and the aquifer from which they drew water were contaminated with a variety of volatile organic chemicals ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200310570.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We find that removal was not precluded by the CAA and was thus proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). Has given the individual states a great responsibility for ensuring that national air quality standards are attained within their geographical areas. State and local governments are 2 required to develop plans that provide for implementation. So long as they are not less stringent than the national standards. The Navy facilities located in Jacksonville are subject to both the State and City air pollution regulations. The City does not claim that any are continuing in nature. While this motion was pending. The Navy argued that dismissal of the case was proper because the City instituted this action purely to recover punitive penalties. That the case was otherwise properly removed. Although the issue of removal was not certified in the interlocutory appeal. It is properly before this Court because a § 1292(b) appeal brings up the entire district court order. It was pursuant to § 1442(a)(1) that the Navy removed the case against it to federal district court. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1919.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Anderson & Travers was on brief for appellee. Appeal the district court's summary judgment ruling that no coverage was provided under an insurance policy issued to Bourbeau by plaintiff appellee. BACKGROUND BACKGROUND The pertinent facts are not in dispute. While this work was in progress. The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug97/96-2469.opa.html">LAFARGE CORP. V. TRAVELERS INDEM. CO.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>LaFarge Corp. v. Initiated this action seeking a declaratory judgment that Travelers Indemnity Co. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/04/00-6043.htm">00-6043 -- MOORE V. TEXACO -- 04/03/2001<BR></A><BR> There is no evidence of record that Texaco conducted any oil field operations on the property after the sale to L.A. . Surface water and groundwater on the property is contaminated by crude oil. He contends that he was unaware of this contamination until 1997. Summary judgment is appropriate </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug97/96-2469.opa.html">LAFARGE CORP. V. TRAVELERS INDEM. CO.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>LaFarge Corp. v. Initiated this action seeking a declaratory judgment that Travelers Indemnity Co. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/09/971480P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Ordering that there is no duty of indemnification. Finding that Liberty had a duty to defend FAG until the issue of indemnification was resolved. BACKGROUND FAG is named as a defendant in four lawsuits brought by individuals who reside near FAG's plant in Joplin. The plaintiffs in those suits allege that FAG is responsible for contaminating their water supply with the solvent trichloroethylene ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200506/02-1387a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-2844.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The 1990 Amendments created a classification system for areas that had not yet attained the permissible NAAQS for ozone based on how far out of compliance they were. It also specified measures each nonattainment area was required to take and limited the number of years each area had to achieve compliance. As of the time the record in this case was compiled. Louis was still out of compliance. Louis had made such good progress that it was otherwise only in </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972319.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> NEMA argues the Gulf insurance policy's pollution exclusion does not apply to relieve Gulf of its duty to defend NEMA in the underlying claims and Gulf has an unqualified duty to defend NEMA even though it is an excess insurer. I. NEMA is a trade association. Its members are manufacturers of products that generate. Before trial the parties agreed that the duty to indemnify issue was not ripe because NEMA had not been held liable to pay damages in any underlying claim. Which is the only issue before us. 2 a number of class action welders.2 These welders alleged NEMA knew the dangers of exposure to manganese fumes but nevertheless promulgated standards for its member companies permitting the use of manganese in welding rods. The welders claim they were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-7175a.html">CHARTER OIL CO V. AETNA<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/07/031520P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Arguing that the strict liability award was not permissible under Minnesota common law. That the MERA claim is moot because Viacom has entered an administrative consent order concerning the contaminated property. That the attorneys' fee award was excessive. That the prejudgment interest was excessive because Viacom had offered to settle the case. A portion of Westinghouse's business there was the repair of transformers that were insulated with Inerteen. Chlorobenzenes were used as a solvent to thin the PCBs down to a usable consistency. It was recognized that PCBs were potential carcinogens and that they were accumulating. PCBs and chlorobenzenes are classified as hazardous substances under MERLA and CERCLA. Sites contaminated with hazardous substances are subject to remediation under federal and state law. The purpose of the study was to ascertain whether PCBs were leaking from those sites and migrating off Westinghouse property. Whether the PCBs were likely to be detected by others and traced back to Westinghouse. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct98/97-2448.man.html">TECHNICAL COATING APPLICATORS, INC. V. UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUAR. CO. (10/9/1998, NO. 97-2448)<BR></A><BR> An </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct98/97-2448.man.html">TECHNICAL COATING APPLICATORS, INC. V. UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUAR. CO. (10/9/1998, NO. 97-2448)<BR></A><BR> An </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981938.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Have standing to sue. The focus of federal efforts to abate water pollution was measurement of the quality of receiving waters. The use of water quality standards as a control mechanism was found to be </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1997/97a1663p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Moessner was substituted as appellant after 3 VE filed a bankruptcy petition and assigned to Moessner its rights in the coverage litigation in exchange for his releasing VE from liability and dismissing his products liability lawsuit. We find no merit in Moessner's contentions that: (1) the policy was ambiguous and should therefore be interpreted in his favor. (2) the TPE was rendered invalid by Reliance's failure to obtain approval by the Insurance Commissioner. (3) Reliance is precluded from relying on the TPE by the doctrines of unilateral mistake or illusory coverage. The most important and difficult issues on appeal are: (1) whether VE's status as a sophisticated insured renders the doctrine of the parties' reasonable expectations inapplicable. (2) whether VE had a reasonable expectation of coverage under the renewal policy because its original policy would have covered Moessner's claim. VE was never told that the TPE was being included in the renewal policy. We will reverse the grant of summary judgment in favor of Reliance and remand for further proceedings. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTQ0NzAgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/03-4470%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The petitions for review are granted in part and denied in part. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 KATZMANN. We find that several aspects of the regulation violate the express terms of the Clean Water Act or are otherwise arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act. Statutory Background The Clean Water Act (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTQ0NzAgdyAybmQgRXJyYXRhLnBkZg==/03-4470%20w%202nd%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The petitions for review are granted in part and denied in part. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 ERIC E. We find that several aspects of the regulation violate the express terms of the Clean Water Act or are otherwise arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act. Statutory Background The Clean Water Act (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1608.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With whom Seder & Chandler was on brief for appellants. Hall & Stewart were on brief for appellees Travelers Indemnity Company and Travelers Indemnity Company of Illinois. Colinvaux and Zelle & Larson were on brief for appellee American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Company. Are obligated to defend and indemnify Dryden in connection with a lawsuit brought against Dryden by Raymond King. After the pleadings were closed. A liability insurance carrier must defend an action against its insured if the allegations </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200105/99-1200a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Counsel appearing with them on the briefs were Andrea Bear Field. With them on the briefs were Lois J. With him on the briefs were Thomas F. Novello was on the brief of the Electric Generator intervenors. In response to petitions from several northeastern states that alleged that nitrogen oxide emitted in neighboring states was harming their local air quality. Are required to adopt state imple mentation plans ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july2002/01-14587.opn.html">SIERRA CLUB ENVTL. ORG. V. MEIBURG (7/2/2002, NO. 01-14587)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july2002/01-14587.opn.html">SIERRA CLUB ENVTL. ORG. V. MEIBURG (7/2/2002, NO. 01-14587)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/99opinions/99-1200a.html">APPALACHIAN POWER CO. V. EPA<BR></A><BR> Sullivan argued the issues for petitioners.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-2158.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> L.L.C. was on brief. LLP were on brief. Nautilus sought a declaratory judgment from the district court that it was not obligated to defend and/or indemnify Jabar in connection with a civil action filed against Jabar by Lisa and Stephen Varano ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F2DAA14C8BE6B02A88256B1100618226/$file/0035621.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: On slip op. 14265. Which ends </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D2C8A4E9AF2FAD8088256E5A00707D5C/$file/0035621.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: On slip op. 14265. Which ends </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1588.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Dana & Gould were on brief for appellant. Gould were on brief for appellant. Young and Peabody & Arnold were Peter G. Young and Peabody & Arnold were on brief for appellee. on brief for appellee. *Of the District of Puerto Rico. On the ground that insurance coverage was excluded under the pollution exclusion clause. ALP purchased the Burlington site from High Voltage and leased back the portion on which High Voltage was to continue its manufactur ing operation. Hazardous materials were discovered in the soil. The contaminants were most conspicuous near a degreaser unit operated by High Voltage. The cleaning solvents utilized in the High Voltage degreaser unit were identical to the contaminants found in the surrounding area. High Voltage itself was insured under the policy for defending or indemnifying its officers and directors against third party claims. Seeking a judicial declaration that Federal was liable under the policy for losses incurred by High Voltage and its officers and directors in connection with the ALP action. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/041750np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will vacate and remand. It found that the well was contaminated with e coli bacteria. Motorists informed the Hardingers it would deny their property claim for the following reasons: The occurrence of the loss was prior to the inception of the policy by Motorists Insurance Group. The loss is also excluded under the current Home Owners Policy carried by the above insured. Attempts to fix the problem were unsuccessful. Seeking a determination that it was under no duty to provide insurance coverage under the policy. The District Court had diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and the declaratory judgment action was brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2201. We have jurisdiction over this appeal based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Summary judgment is appropriate if there are no genuine issues of material fact presented and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.1 Fed. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4A5FAA60D2C9CFAD88256ADB00760BF9/$file/0035621.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It was identical to the original complaint. The district court reviewed the first amended complaint and concluded that the idea that the allegations of fires </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200205/99-1348a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the joint briefs were Paul M. With him on the joint briefs were Peter Glaser. Were on the briefs for intervenor State of Michigan. With them on the brief was M. With him on the joint brief were Ann Brewster Weeks. McCord were on the joint brief for Industry and State intervenors. McMicha el were on the brief for amici curiae State of Utah and State of New Mexico Environment Department. The Haze Rule calls for states to play the lead role in designing and implementing regional haze programs to clear the air in national parks and wilderness areas that have been classified as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1C8D13C22B97552E88256E5A00707D00/$file/0035621.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It was identical to the original complaint. The district court reviewed the first amended complaint and concluded that the idea that the allegations of fires </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/99opinions/99-1348a.html">AMERICAN CORN GROWERS ASSOCIATION V. EPA<BR></A><BR> 99 1358 and 99 1359.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-2227.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Bracken with whom Bracken & Baram was on brief for appellants. Were on joint brief of appellees and respondent. Was on joint brief of appellees and respondent. Has begun construction of a mammoth project that includes rebuilding a major segment of Interstate Route 93 that now runs on a viaduct through downtown Boston and is known as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1966.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief. Were on brief. Were in the business of selling gasoline and home heating oil. Although the policies were issued by The Continental Insurance Company. While the 1983 policies were still in effect. Although the 1985 policy was issued to BC&L. Down East was named as an additional insured and thus was covered by that policy. While the policy was still in effect. Down East's 1986 Niagara policy was canceled effective December 23. Down East was covered for claims made during the policy period as a result of pollution incidents which also occurred during the policy period. If a claim was made on December 24. Down East would have no insurance coverage. The 1986 Niagara policy would not provide coverage because the claim was made after cancellation of the Niagara policy. Quinlan recommended that Down East purchase an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/43EA7BD8DA0FBFC388256D3A007CA177/$file/0117078.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Argued that California's MTBE ban is preempted by the federal Clean Air Act. Which was granted by the district court. Though the MTBE ban is not expressly exempted from preemption by the Clean Air Act. The ban nonetheless is not preempted because it does not conflict with the goals and purposes of the Clean Air Act. DAVIS 7423 mentation and enforcement responsibilities under the Clean Air Act are shared between the federal government and state governments. While the states have the authority to devise implementation plans to meet those standards. One of the specific aims of the Clean Air Act is to reduce air pollution by reducing motor vehicle emissions. § 211 requires that gasoline sold in certain areas of the country have an oxygen content that equals or exceeds 2.0 percent by weight. Gasoline sold in certain areas have an oxygen content that equals or exceeds 2.7 percent by weight. MTBE and ethanol are the two most widely used oxygenates. Was originally scheduled to take effect on December 31. That the ban conflicts with the objectives of the Clean Air Act and is therefore preempted. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTUxMjMtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-5123-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2006) The clerk is requested to correct the official caption to eliminate the additional repetition of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/08/972279P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Glasgow's water treatment facility is regulated by state and federal water pollution laws. The facility is considered a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200313810.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We conclude that this case is justiciable and that unresolved factual issues remain. Two basic issues are raised on appeal: first. Whether the case is justiciable. Both because the plaintiffs have standing to challenge the EPA's failure to review a state administrative rule affecting Florida's water quality standards. The plaintiffs are The Florida Public Interest Research Group Citizen Lobby. Inasmuch as a clear understanding of how the federal and state governments share responsibilities to regulate water pollution is essential to the resolution of this case. The federal and state governments have worked together to restore and maintain the integrity of the nation's waters. Many duties to monitor and regulate pollution of the nation's waters are divided between the federal and state governments. State governments are responsible for establishing water quality standards for all of their waterbodies. Water quality standards are designed to do two things: first. We have described the second aspect of a water quality standard as setting the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan96/94-9278.opa.html">BITUMINOUS CASUALTY CORP. V. ADVANCED ADHESIVE TECH.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Bituminous Casualty Corp. v. We hold that a pollution exclusion provision in a commercial liability insurance policy is ambiguous and must be construed against the insurer. Or breaks out from where it was intended to be.<p> <p> Pollutants means any solid. Advanced asserted a counterclaim contending that Bituminous </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/sept97/96-3011.wpd.html">SCHEUFLER V. GEN. HOST CORP.<BR></A><BR> Plaintiffs have filed a cross appeal challenging the district court's decision to require the tenant farmers to join as party plaintiffs. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 1291 and affirm. American Salt was owned and operated by the Cudahy Company. The Cudahy Company was a wholly owned subsidiary of defendant General Host. Is located two miles south of Lyons. Underlying Cow Creek at varying depths of approximately ten to seventy feet is the Cow Creek Valley Aquifer. Plaintiffs are owners and tenants of real property in rural Rice County. The majority of which is used for agricultural production. The specific breakdown of land ownership is as follows: Owner Tract Ted and Debra Scheufler 160 acres in Southwest Quarter of Section 28. The district court found the water in the aquifer was heavily polluted with salt. 000 parts per million have been recorded in water drawn from the aquifer. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan96/94-9278.opa.html">BITUMINOUS CASUALTY CORP. V. ADVANCED ADHESIVE TECH.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Bituminous Casualty Corp. v. We hold that a pollution exclusion provision in a commercial liability insurance policy is ambiguous and must be construed against the insurer. Or breaks out from where it was intended to be.<p> <p> Pollutants means any solid. Advanced asserted a counterclaim contending that Bituminous </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1997/97a1662p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) and Friends of the Earth (FOE) have sued Magnesium Elektron. We will reverse the district court and vacate its permanent injunction and judgment against MEI. Because no new permit was issued. The terms of the 1984 permit remained in effect. (1) against any person . . . who is alleged to be in violation of (A) an effluent standard or limitation under this chapter or (B) an order issued by the Administrator or a State with respect to such a standard or limitation . . . . 33 U.S.C. § 1365 (1986). 4 Public Interest Research Group of New Jersey and Friends of the Earth are non profit environmental organizations.2 Pursuant to the citizen suit provision of the Clean Water Act. The affiants' enjoyment of these activities is lessened to the extent that they </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BC2C95F93B40318F88256C9B005B9117/$file/0210196.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Even though the defendant was previously assessed a civil penalty for the same conduct by the Clark County. The District alleges in the NOV that AB HAZ is liable for violations of Section 13.1.7 (Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants) of the District's Air Pollution Control Regulations in connection with an asbestos abatement project at the Landmark Hotel and Casino . . . . .... The parties agree that this civil penalty is being paid for purposes of settlement of the District's NOV . . . . 6 UNITED STATES v. The agreement was signed on behalf of the Clark County Health District by its director. The following additional language was hand written in: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/03-1202a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief was John C. Gilberg were on the brief for intervenors the Brick Industry Association. That is. Determines is achievable for new or existing sources . . . . 4 Supplementing this general guidance. 42 U.S.C. § 7411(a)(2) </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/08/00-1224.htm">00-1224 -- AMERICAN WILDLANDS V. BROWNER -- 08/08/2001<BR></A><BR> Two questions are presented to this court for review: (1) whether the EPA properly approved Montana's statutory exemption from antidegradation review of nonpoint sources of pollution. 1291 and affirm. <ol> <li>Statutory and Regulatory Scheme</strong></li> </ol> <ol> <ol> <li>Point and Nonpoint Source Discharges</em></li> </ol> </ol> <p> <strong><em> The Clean Water Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1059.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Kaplan and The Kaplan/Bond Group were on brief for appellants. Dana & Gould were on brief for appellee. The district court held that the remedies were preempted. Discerning the law in this area is far from easy. We are constrained to reverse in part and to remand for further proceedings. The basic facts of the case are not in dispute. The captain and owner 2 2 were fined a total of $30. 000 of which was to be available to compensate individuals. The claimants in the present appeal are a group of shellfish dealers who allege severe economic losses arising from the two week hiatus in shellfishing activities. Which held that compensation for economic losses standing alone is unavailable in admiralty cases. The dealers assert that their businesses were injured 4 4 when the World Prodigy spill prevented local fishermen from harvesting shellfish in Narragansett Bay and thereby precluded the dealers from purchasing the shellfish and reselling them to restaurants and other buyers. The dealers' maritime law claims are thus purely for economic losses. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1321.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Alfaro & L pez Conway were on brief for appellant Metlife Capital Corporation. Garrity and Jim nez Graffam & Lausell were on brief for appellant Bunker Group. Were on brief for appellee United States of America. Nevares and Smith & Nevares were on brief for appellee Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. We hold that claims arising under the OPA (for pollution removal costs and damages) are not subject to the substantive or procedural law of the Limitation Act or to the concursus of claims under Rule F of the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/97opinions/97-1440d.html">AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS, INC., V. EPA<BR></A><BR> Petitioners on Ozone Issues in 97 1440 and 97 1441.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/97opinions/97-1440c.html">AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS, INC., V. EPA<BR></A><BR> Petitioners on Ozone Issues in 97 1440 and 97 1441.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200203/97-1440c.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With them on the briefs were Henry V. With him on the briefs was Joy E. Gasaway and Daryl Joseffer were on the brief of intervenors Atlantic City Electric Com pany and American Road and Transportation Builders Associ ation in 97 1440 and 97 1441. With them on the briefs were John C. Fox were on the brief for inter venors Massachusetts. Are requisite to protect the public health. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200203/97-1440d.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With them on the briefs were Henry V. With him on the briefs was Joy E. Gasaway and Daryl Joseffer were on the brief of intervenors Atlantic City Electric Com pany and American Road and Transportation Builders Associ ation in 97 1440 and 97 1441. With them on the briefs were John C. Fox were on the brief for inter venors Massachusetts. Are requisite to protect the public health. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200406/03-1120a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTU4OTAtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-5890-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The court having determined that the claim was barred by the policy's contamination exclusion clause. The action was brought to recover under a first party property insurance contract (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3D85DBFEC9FD4BC788256E5A00707D3D/$file/9735191.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> While the decision was pending. Judge Schroeder was drawn to replace him. Circuit Judge: This is an appeal of a $5 billion punitive damages award arising out of the Exxon Valdez oil spill. This is not a case about befouling the environment. This is a case about commercial fishing. The jury was specifically instructed that it could not award damages for environmental harm. The reason is that under a stipulation with the United States and Alaska. Exxon had already been punished for environmental harm.1 The verdict in this case was for damage to economic expectations for commercial fishermen. The plaintiffs here were almost entirely compensated for their damages years ago. The punitive damages at issue were awarded to punish Exxon. Among the issues are whether punitive damages should have been barred as a matter of law and whether the award was excessive. Important aspects of this opinion are controlled by a 1 See Eyak Native Village v. Inc. 3 Facts Bligh Island and Bligh Reef have been known to navigators for a long time. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/56175743C33FCC7288256D6400750FA0/$file/0271503.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This appeal presents the question whether the Clean Air Act program to prevent deterioration of air quality is administered in Nevada: (1) in large air quality planning units encompassing all or nearly all of the state. If the unit is very large. New minor sources are subject to the controls in issue. If the unit is but one of hundreds in the State. Then many units are not subject to the controls because no major pollution source is located within the unit. Minor sources are then free to begin operating there without the special pollution controls. Petitioners Reno Sparks Indian Colony and Great Basin Mine Watch (collectively </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3C2CBD69E6E2C18388256AFD001790CB/$file/9735191.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> While the decision was pending. Judge Schroeder was drawn to replace him. Circuit Judge: This is an appeal of a $5 billion punitive damages award arising out of the Exxon Valdez oil spill. This is not a case about befouling the environment. This is a case about commercial fishing. The jury was specifically instructed that it could not award damages for environmental harm. The reason is that under a stipulation with the United States and Alaska. Exxon had already been punished for environmental harm.1 The verdict in this case was for damage to economic expectations for commercial fishermen. The plaintiffs here were almost entirely compensated for their damages years ago. The punitive damages at issue were awarded to punish Exxon. Among the issues are whether punitive damages should have been barred as a matter of law and whether the award was excessive. Important aspects of this opinion are controlled by a 1 See Eyak Native Village v. Inc. 3 Facts Bligh Island and Bligh Reef have been known to navigators for a long time. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6879BB417B4DA67088256AB6007A6452/$file/9970853.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Stat. 445B.500(c)(1). 11790 that Hall raises is whether the EPA adequately assessed Clark County's prospects. The statutory basis for this claim is the Act's requirement that the EPA determine whether air quality plan revisions will </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/82034CDEAD0885C188256E5A00707C85/$file/9970853.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Stat. 445B.500(c)(1). 11790 that Hall raises is whether the EPA adequately assessed Clark County's prospects. The statutory basis for this claim is the Act's requirement that the EPA determine whether air quality plan revisions will </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july96/93-5245.man.html">STILLMAN V. TRAVELERS INS. CO.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Stillman v. As there were other issues and defenses which should have survived and the grant of summary judgment should have been only partial. To which this case is being returned by our judgment today. <p> I. The bank was to procure insurance. When the improvements were completed. Tests were conducted which revealed high levels of fungi. The parties agreed that no facts were in dispute as to this issue. That its resolution was solely a matter of law.<p> The district court. Concluding that the pollution exclusion clause was ineffective. Charter Oak sought relief under Rule 59(e) arguing that a final judgment was inappropriate as there remained other defenses to coverage not resolved by the cross motions for summary judgment. This pollution exclusion clause was legally effective to excuse Charter Oaks from liability for pollution related claims.<p> Stillman's motion. Stated that if the pollution exclusion clause should be found to have no legal effect. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july96/93-5245.man.html">STILLMAN V. TRAVELERS INS. CO.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Stillman v. As there were other issues and defenses which should have survived and the grant of summary judgment should have been only partial. To which this case is being returned by our judgment today. <p> I. The bank was to procure insurance. When the improvements were completed. Tests were conducted which revealed high levels of fungi. The parties agreed that no facts were in dispute as to this issue. That its resolution was solely a matter of law.<p> The district court. Concluding that the pollution exclusion clause was ineffective. Charter Oak sought relief under Rule 59(e) arguing that a final judgment was inappropriate as there remained other defenses to coverage not resolved by the cross motions for summary judgment. This pollution exclusion clause was legally effective to excuse Charter Oaks from liability for pollution related claims.<p> Stillman's motion. Stated that if the pollution exclusion clause should be found to have no legal effect. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1EB3E72108D4B5CD88256B1F005776B8/$file/9970853.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> ORDER The Petition for Panel Rehearing or Clarification is DENIED. Is hereby AMENDED as follows: 16726 1. ' </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200006/94-1683a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With them on the briefs were G. With them on the brief were Lois J. With him on the brief were G. Statutory Framework RCRA is a comprehensive environmental statute granting EPA authority to regulate solid and hazardous wastes. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200008/94-1683b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With them on the briefs were G. With them on the brief were Lois J. With him on the brief were G. Statutory Framework RCRA is a comprehensive environmental statute granting EPA authority to regulate solid and hazardous wastes. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-1683b.html">AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE V. EPA<BR></A><BR> </p> <p>With them on the briefs were G. With them on the brief were Lois </p> <p>J. With him on the brief were G. </p> <p>William Frick and Thomas S. Statutory Framework</p> <p>RCRA is a comprehensive environmental statute granting </p> <p>EPA authority to regulate solid and hazardous wastes. ". Are governed by Subtitle D of RCRA. Are </p> <p>generally subject to less stringent management standards </p> <p>than ". Which are regulated under Subtitle </p> <p>C. A solid waste is any discarded </p> <p>material. For purposes of the regulation means any material </p> <p>which is abandoned. EPA </p> <p>determined that oil bearing wastewaters are solid waste for </p> <p>purposes of RCRA regulation. That recovered oil from </p> <p>petrochemical facilities is excluded from the definition of solid </p> <p>waste only when specified conditions are met. Impurities are removed and usable </p> <p>hydrocarbon fractions are isolated from crude oil feedstock. </p> <p>See Final Rule. 121/2. </p> <p>Large quantities of water are used. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200513959.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Determined that the EPA's approval was not arbitrary or capricious and entered judgment in the EPA's favor. Because an understanding of the responsibilities placed on the states and the EPA is essential to resolving this case. Because they are designed to determine which waterbodies are safe enough to support their designated uses. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/362C986B927C85CA882570F40007E278/$file/0455024.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Will & Emery. Carson Harbor argues there are genuine issues of material fact regarding whether it substantially complied with the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (National Contingency Plan). UNOCAL CORP. 511 was properly authenticated and that the district court abused its discretion in not considering late filed declarations. Facts BACKGROUND Carson Harbor is a limited partnership owned by James Goldstein and his corporation. Of which he is the sole shareholder and president. When the Property was converted into a mobile home park. Included within the Property boundaries are about seventeen acres of marshy wetlands. The tar like material was visible at the surface and covered an area about twenty feet by thirty feet in the wetlands. Was most concentrated near the tar like material. Carson Harbor asserts that the area is a federally protected wetlands. That contention is not relevant to the outcome of the issues presented to this court and need not be decided. 1 512 CARSON HARBOR VILLAGE v. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/12FB91A6109ECF2388256E5A00707D85/$file/9970853.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> ORDER The Petition for Panel Rehearing or Clarification is DENIED. Is hereby AMENDED as follows: 16726 1. ' </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-2038.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Were on brief. The district court concluded that the principles of direct and derivative liability under CERCLA articulated in <U>Bestfoods</U> would not have altered that original judgment. <U>United States</U> v. <U>Kayser Roth Corp.</U>. Stamina Mills was a wholly owned subsidiary of Kayser Roth.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/96opinions/96-1392a.html">MTR EQUIP MFTR ASSN V. NICHOLS MARY D.<BR></A><BR> Mezines</i> and <i>Michael T. <p> Reid</i> were on the briefs. <i>Louis R. Were on <p> the brief. <i>Karen L. Were on the brief.<p> <p> <i>John H. Whatley</i> were on the brief in No. <p> 96 1392 for intervenors American Automobile Manufacturers <p> Association and Association of International Automobile Man <p> ufacturers. Reid</i> <p> were on the briefs. <i>Louis R. Whatley</i> were on the brief.<p> <p> Before: Edwards. Petitioners are a number of associa <p> tions that represent businesses that manufacture. <p> sell car parts in what is known as the automobile </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb96/94-8452.opa.html">VIRGINIA PROPERTIES, INC. V. HOME INS. CO.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Virginia Properties. Which expressly provides that such an opinion will have </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9F1F418C5BA9B31488256AC5005AD546/$file/9916153.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Norton is substituted for her predecessor. The BLM is authorized to exchange federal lands that are under its management for non federal lands if an exchange will serve the public interest. 43 U.S.C. § 1716. We need not address whether Hall's due process rights were violated when the district court granted summary judgment without holding a hearing. 13104 agreement to initiate an exchange of 4. Del Webb's proposal contemplates that Del Webb will build a planned community of approximately 11. Federal regulations permit an agency that is planning a major federal action to conduct a less exhaustive Environmental Assessment (EA) first to determine whether the proposed action will </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1276.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Fisher & Boylan were on brief for appellant. Fortenbaugh & Young were on brief for appellee. Is obligated to indemnify it for environmental cleanup costs related to land and water contamination allegedly caused by Peterson/Puritan. Factual Background The ultimate issue in this case is whether Northbrook is obligated to indemnify CPC for environmental cleanup costs related to land and water contamination caused by Peterson/Puritan. CPC is a multinational packaging and manufacturing corporation headquartered in New Jersey. Its manufacturing facility is located in the town of Cumberland. The wells were closed later that year. That suit was settled in 1984 for $780. The settlement was paid by Northwestern National Insurance Company ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov2000/00-10283.man.html">AUTO OWNERS INS. CO. V. CITY OF TAMPA HOUS. AUTH. (11/1/2000, NO. 00-10283)<BR></A><BR> The Insurance Company is liable for neither indemnification nor the costs of defense incurred by the Housing Authority when it was sued (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov2000/00-10283.man.html">AUTO OWNERS INS. CO. V. CITY OF TAMPA HOUS. AUTH. (11/1/2000, NO. 00-10283)<BR></A><BR> The Insurance Company is liable for neither indemnification nor the costs of defense incurred by the Housing Authority when it was sued (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/932F37A90FEA3CC688256E5A00707CBC/$file/9916153.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Norton is substituted for her predecessor. The BLM is authorized to exchange federal lands that are under its management for non federal lands if an exchange will serve the public interest. 43 U.S.C. § 1716. We need not address whether Hall's due process rights were violated when the district court granted summary judgment without holding a hearing. 13104 agreement to initiate an exchange of 4. Del Webb's proposal contemplates that Del Webb will build a planned community of approximately 11. Federal regulations permit an agency that is planning a major federal action to conduct a less exhaustive Environmental Assessment (EA) first to determine whether the proposed action will </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3562F31D684CBA1A88256DC9007E1060/$file/0216037.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Sierra Club is not a party to this appeal. JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Which states that a decision may be set aside </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199804/96-1392a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Reid were on the briefs. Were on the brief. Were on the brief. Whatley were on the brief in No. 96 1392 for intervenors American Automobile Manufacturers Association and Association of International Automobile Man ufacturers. Reid were on the briefs. Whatley were on the brief. Petitioners are a number of associa tions that represent businesses that manufacture. Sell car parts in what is known as the automobile </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200512204.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> There is an additional attempt to prove coverage under three insurance policies. AGLC was the most recent previous owner of the St. Augustine manufactured gas plant ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb96/94-8452.opa.html">VIRGINIA PROPERTIES, INC. V. HOME INS. CO.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Virginia Properties. Which expressly provides that such an opinion will have </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/10EC24771E0FA76F8825733D004C6A36/$file/0556654.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Defendant appellee South Coast Air Quality Management District ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1998/98a1957p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are called upon to answer as a controlling question of law whether the law of the forum New Jersey applies to liability insurance policies covering environmental damage claims arising out of numerous sites in many states. That law differs from that of the state where the waste site is located. Then the law of the waste site will apply. This is the second of two declaratory judgment actions brought to establish the extent of insurance coverage for a number of claims against NL Industries arising out of its nationwide lead processing activities. These actions were brought in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey under diversity jurisdiction. NL was incorporated in New Jersey until recently and still has some industrial plants there. Its national headquarters and principal place of business are located in New York. The insurance contracts were negotiated and executed by NL with a New York broker. One of the carriers has informed us that the numbers have increased to 202 sites in 34 states. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C0063DA309C84ED4882571BC007DDBC4/$file/0416125.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The proposed expansion was to be located at Newmont's South Operations Area Project. Which was approved in 1993. The expansion was to be known as the South Operations Area Project Amendment (Amended South Project) and was estimated to result in a total additional disturbance of 1. 839 of which are public. Amended South Project was intended to deepen the existing Gold Quarry Mine. Newmont would have to post further phased bonds before going ahead with other activities. Which like the Amended South Project was submitted to the Elko Field Office. The proposal was estimated to result in a disturbance of 486 acres of land. 453 of which are public. Refractory ore produced from Leeville was to be hauled by truck and processed at an existing mill located at the South Operations Area. The Bureau determined that the Leeville proposal could potentially have a significant environmental impact and pre 8626 GREAT BASIN MINE WATCH v. The April 2000 Cumulative Impacts Analysis was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C300E5FFEF9DB7F188257074005AAD8C/$file/0472650.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Chief Judge: This is an expedited review of the Environmental Protection Agency's May 26. Which are various airborne fine particles of less than ten microns in diameter. The new deadline is 2010. Whose challenges have been consolidated. Are the following groups and non profit organizations: Asso 12388 ASSOCIATION OF IRRITATED RESIDENTS v. The absolute outside deadline for PM 10 areas to attain the air quality standard is 2006. The most significant is the EPA's authority to set a deadline that extends past 2006. We deny the petitions for review because we hold that the 2010 deadline was authorized within the structure of the Act. The Act also sets up a scheme under which the public is given significant opportunities to offer input and criticism at various stages of each state's efforts to achieve better air quality. These petitioners have participated throughout this process for the Valley at each opportunity for notice and comment. California's San Joaquin Valley is the heart of the state's top agricultural region. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/032070np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> After Broadwell's home was purportedly damaged through skunk infestation. Work Restoration averred that if it were ultimately found liable for Broadwell's injuries. Mark I was insured under a liability policy issued by Assurance. A dismissal for failure to state a claim is appropriate only if it </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200415324.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which is part of Alabama's state implementation plan (SIP) approved by the Environmental Protection Agency. The complaint alleged that there were more than 8. The reason with broader application is that all of the alleged violations at the Colbert Plant are within the forgiveness zone of the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM)'s so called </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200314516.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The defendants appeal only the jury's determination that they are liable under the CWA and the RCRA. We conclude that there was substantial evidence for the jury to find the defendants liable under the CWA and the RCRA. The facts are taken largely from the district court's order denying the defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law. 2 1 * Parker moved into the house located on that property in 1983 and lived there until medical problems forced her to move out in 1998. The house at 9144 Washington Street has remained vacant.2 The property adjoining the Parker property is 8194 Washington Street ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0B5BD65CC972CC3D88256BAE0058A691/$file/0116111.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: At slip op. 5622. States are required to identify such waters. Which are to be designated as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B36344789404F68B882572EA00534820/$file/0575269.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Miller is substituted for her predecessor as Regional Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency. UNITED STATES EPA 6269 ORDER Petitioners' Petition for Clarification is GRANTED. 2007 and reported at 475 F.3d 1096 is hereby amended as follows: 1) On 475 F.3d at 1099. The sentence beginning </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/06/97-2047.htm">97-2047 -- ARAGON V. U.S. -- 06/23/1998<BR></A><BR> The base was redesignated Walker Air Force Base (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992228.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Who was to have procured a liability policy containing basic pollution coverage. Who are specialists the agent knew had contracted to remove and/or transport hazardous waste from a contaminated site. (3) Brown was liable for failing to notify AETC and B&D Maintenance. (4) AETC was not contributorily negligent. I. AETC is a company specializing in the removal and disposal of hazardous waste. B&D was to supply rigging and cranes to move the transformers. Which were filled with PCB contaminated oil. AETC then was to remove the transformers from the premises. AETC did not request a copy of the complete insurance policy despite the fact that the certificate also contained a disclaimer on its face that warned the coverages were subject to exclusions contained within the policy itself. B&D employees were in the process of lowering transformers from the roof of the Columbia building to the floor when a rigging winch hit a stationary transformer on the rooftop. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb2003/01-10331.opn.html">ADMIRAL INS. CO. V. FEIT MANAGEMENT CO. (2/19/2003, NO. 01-10331)<BR></A><BR> Provides indemnity for bodily injury or property damage for which the insured is liable. Unless it is specifically excluded under the policy. Vapor or soot from equipment used to heat that building. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb2003/01-10331.opn.html">ADMIRAL INS. CO. V. FEIT MANAGEMENT CO. (2/19/2003, NO. 01-10331)<BR></A><BR> Provides indemnity for bodily injury or property damage for which the insured is liable. Unless it is specifically excluded under the policy. Vapor or soot from equipment used to heat that building. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991419.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This is an action brought under the Clean Air Act by an industrial consumer of electric power to obtain rights to valuable pollution emissions allowances allocated by the Environmental Protection Agency for the Kammer Generating Station. Is therefore entitled to a proportionate amount of the pollution emissions allowances. The contractual arrangement between Ormet and Ohio Power did not make Ormet a joint owner of the Kammer plant and that Ormet was therefore not entitled to a 3 proportionate share of the pollution emissions allowances allocated to the plant. Electricity is its single greatest </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200603/03-1380a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> O:\Slip\WP\2005\03 1380 New York State14a.odl.wpd
537 OPINION/ORDER
Miller is substituted for her predecessor as Regional Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency. We are presented with a preexisting SIP containing language that prohibits open burning generally and contains no exception allowing farmers to burn the residue left in their fields after harvesting their crops. EPA's approval is legally unsustainable. So that the amendment only clarified what was already the case. This view of the preexisting SIP is one with which we cannot agree. Open burning of agricultural fields is a common practice in Idaho. Crop residue burning is a prevalent agricultural practice and that there is an environmental benefit to protecting water quality from the growing of certain crops in environmentally SAFE AIR FOR EVERYONE v. The administrative record establishes that such field burning is also a source of particulate matter that contributes to air pollution. (3) that some individuals with such ailments have fled their homes during burning season to avoid the smoke.
537 OPINION/ORDER
1996
537 OPINION/ORDER
This appeal was stayed in February 2002. We have lifted the stay. First Realty argues that the district court erred in holding that Frontier did not have a duty to defend it in a suit arising from its role in the sale of property. First Realty was the broker for Anthony and Shari Addy in the sale of their property to Greg and April Johnson. The Johnsons further alleged that the misrepresentations that there was no solid waste disposal site or environmental concerns were fraudulently or negligently made and caused damages. First Realty submitted deposition 2 testimony by the Johnsons' expert indicating that there was no hazardous waste on the property and that no gases were emanating from the property. Because there was no duty to defend. DISCUSSION We review the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo and affirm if
537 OPINION/ORDER
Is withdrawn and the opinion attached to this order shall be filed in its place. WHITMAN 10061 The existing petition for panel rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc are denied. The parties have 14 days from the filing of the new opinion to file a petition for rehearing. BayKeeper contended that California was years behind in implementing a TMDL program. States are required to identify such waters. Which are to be designated as
518 OPINION/ORDER
We conclude that the district court should have remanded these cases to state court. The complaint in each case alleged that: (1) land owned by Crescent and Rinehart at the time the lawsuits were filed had been used by its previous owners as a manufacturing facility and waste water treatment plant. (2) each Plaintiff had sustained personal injury or death caused by exposure to hazardous substances that were stored on the land prior to Crescent's and Rinehart's ownership of it. (3) Crescent and Rinehart were liable pursuant to § 376.313 Florida Statutes. Crescent was diverse from each Plaintiff. There was a possibility that their complaints stated causes of action under Florida law. Remand was proper. While the motions to remand were pending. The district court said that there was a
518 OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: This is a CERCLA dispute about whether the federal government can make a company that discharged pollutants into the soil at the government's direction and under its control during World War II. Which they were manufacturing as quickly as possible at several plants. Where there was no why. V Was for Victory 132 (1976). The war was not going well in 1942. 829 casualties just in the landing force.3 Then Senator Truman chaired hearings on why our country was unprepared to meet its critical need for rubber. To investigate and
518 OPINION/ORDER
Contends that the EPA's final rule is invalid because the EPA did not comply with the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Although we are sympathetic to the view expressed by many within the Area that this rule threatens serious economic harm. We recognize that our role as a reviewing court is strictly limited. We are constrained to deny the petition for review. The Act authorizes the EPA to identify air pollutants that are sufficiently dangerous to warrant federal regulation. Which is the maximum allowable concentration of the pollutant in the ambient air. One pollutant for which the EPA has promulgated a NAAQS is ozone. Whose chemical precursors are emitted by industrial and transportation sources. That site is in noncompliance with the NAAQS. If one monitoring site within an area is in noncompliance with a NAAQS. Then the entire area is designated a nonattainment area for that pollutant. Nonattainment areas are further classified as
518 OPINION/ORDER
Although numerous issues are raised on appeal. The primary issue is the appropriate test to determine if Chemical Leaman
518 OPINION/ORDER
2 the EPA created a scheme in which the Environmental Appeals Board (
518 99-6156 -- PLOTNER V. AT&T CORP. -- 09/01/2000

Concluding the appeal is timely. We further conclude that the necessary elements of res judicata are present. 158(d) and affirm.

518 OPINION/ORDER
We conclude that the district court's ruling on the statute of limitations was in error. Regulatory Framework The primary purpose of the Clean Air Act (
518 OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs was Howard I. With him on the brief were Lois J. With him on the brief were Charles H. Novello was on the brief for amicus curiae Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition. Biderman was on the brief for amicus curiae Medical Waste Institute. The standards1 are to reflect the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of air pollutants ... that the Administrator. Any non air quality health and environmental 1 The EPA explains that the rules for existing units are
518 SOUTHERN SOLVENTS, INC. V. NEW HAMPSHIRE INS. CO.

This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Southern Solvents. PERC is a solvent used in the dry cleaning industry. The PERC was held in storage tanks at Southern's Tampa site and transported in 1. 000 gallon tankers were also used to transport PERC from Southern's PERC manufacturers to other wholesale PERC distributors. Operations at the Tampa site were discontinued sometime between 1984 and 1986.<p> At some time during the summer or fall of 1988. Both Employers and South American are in receivership.<p> Southern notified the AIG Companies of the environmental situation on March 15. Canal and Employers.<p> Mediation was held and Defendants New Hampshire. Employers settled and were dismissed. Defendant Appellee Canal moved for summary judgment alleging: 1) the contamination was not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug96/95-3058.opa.html">SOUTHERN SOLVENTS, INC. V. NEW HAMPSHIRE INS. CO.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Southern Solvents. PERC is a solvent used in the dry cleaning industry. The PERC was held in storage tanks at Southern's Tampa site and transported in 1. 000 gallon tankers were also used to transport PERC from Southern's PERC manufacturers to other wholesale PERC distributors. Operations at the Tampa site were discontinued sometime between 1984 and 1986.<p> At some time during the summer or fall of 1988. Both Employers and South American are in receivership.<p> Southern notified the AIG Companies of the environmental situation on March 15. Canal and Employers.<p> Mediation was held and Defendants New Hampshire. Employers settled and were dismissed. Defendant Appellee Canal moved for summary judgment alleging: 1) the contamination was not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1997/97a1652p.htm">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Contends that the EPA's <p>final rule is invalid because the EPA did not comply with <p>the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Although <p>we are sympathetic to the view expressed by many within <p>the Area that this rule threatens serious economic harm. <p>we recognize that our role as a reviewing court is strictly <p>limited. We are constrained to deny the petition for <p>review. <br wp= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0018p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The ensuing litigation over which entities were responsible for what share of the considerable investigation and cleanup costs has traced an eight year oscillation through and between various levels of the federal court system. These adversaries have amassed a prodigious factual record. We have already comprehensively detailed many of the pertinent factual disputes elsewhere. A brief overview of the litigation is in order. Aroclor 1242 is the most prevalent PCB. The MDEQ and EPA determined that KRSG companies were responsible for the bulk of the Aroclor 1242 contamination at the NPL site. All four KRSG companies have not disputed that they are liable and responsible parties within the meaning of CERCLA. They have. KRSG alleged that these factory owners were partially responsible for the PCB contamination at the NPL site such that they owed KRSG contribution for the costs of the investigation and future clean up. The Allegan facility was in operation from the early 1900s until 1989. Did not resolve the more salient question of whether these PCBs actually found their way to the Kalamazoo River such that they contributed to the overall pollution for which KRSG was responsible. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4CC13E6C46DD0B0C88256C0C007E8659/$file/0035667.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A cornerstone of the Clean Water Act is that the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972079.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> For an oil spill were not compensable under the Oil Pollution Act (OPA). Finding that the Fund Director had acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner and that Gatlin Oil was entitled to compensation for all its recovery costs and damages with interest. Although a district court's remand to an agency is not usually within the purview of section 1291. The Supreme Court has noted an exception that is applicable to this appeal. The Court explained that an order reversing an agency's denial of benefits and remanding for proceedings consistent with the 2 district court's opinion was a final appealable order within the meaning of section 1291. The owner of an onshore facility is the party responsible for removal costs of a spill that discharges oil into navigable waters. The owner is afforded a complete defense. §§ 2702(d)(1)(A). The Act also created the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (Fund) for the payment of uncompensated removal costs that are consistent with the National Contingency Plan (Plan) and for the payment of uncompensated damages. §§ 2712(a)(3). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTcyMDNfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-7203_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which is high in turbidity. Relevant Clean Water Act Provisions The purpose of the CWA is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8F08A4B0C414A2A188257020006E69A4/$file/0316309.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which was deemed to supersede the federal standard. Discharges from any </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1015.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> ERRATA SHEET The opinion of this Court is amended as follows: Cover sheet: Replace case number </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/08/051906P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> IBP timely removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska.2 The case was consolidated for discovery and pretrial purposes with twelve similar cases. Each case is to be tried individually. This is the first. Concluding that the unjust enrichment claim based on the facts presented was a novel cause of action that the Nebraska courts had not recognized. The order was amended numerous times to provide both parties extensions to the disclosure deadlines. Meggs's reports were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/99opinions/99-1457a.html">CEMENT KILN RECYCLING COALITION V. EPA<BR></A><BR> Pew argued the cause for petitioner Sierra Club.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F6D5E40581B49CE288256D03007B268D/$file/0235836.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The water discharged is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5CA19A1CA157C7B388256C62007C7A8C/$file/0135762.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> § 2737 is an unconstitutional bill of attainder and denies SeaRiver due process and equal pro 6 SEARIVER MARITIME FINANCIAL HOLDINGS v. We hold that § 2737 is not an unconstitutional bill of attainder because it does not punish SeaRiver. Nor is § 2737 inconsistent with the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection because there is a rational basis for Congress to have concluded that excluding the Exxon Valdez from Prince William Sound would further the legitimate purpose of protecting the Sound's environment from future oil spills. It was constructed at a cost of $125 million for the purpose of carrying oil from the Alaska North Slope to United States oil refineries. It is undisputed that the ship ran aground as a result of the actions of its master and crew. Congress recognized that Prince William Sound is an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1105.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Appellees' petition for panel rehearing filed in this appeal is granted for the sole and limited purpose of correcting the dates when water samples were taken from the Roosevelt Tunnel portal. The relevant sentence (page 36) will now read: Even the Plaintiffs' strongest evidence that water samples at the shaft and the tunnel portal (samples taken by Cripple Creek & Victor Mining <hr> Co.) both contain zinc and manganese is less than convincing given the uncertainties by which the data were collected. Page 36) will now read: See supra note 2. Although zinc and manganese were detected. In all other respects the petition for rehearing is denied. A copy of which is attached to this order. A </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/99030FCD2DC2D42188256FCD00000F0E/$file/0370231.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which applies to areas that are actually or potentially low in air pollution. Several of the program's restrictions on emissions are triggered when a major stationary source (i.e. A central issue in the present appeal is whether the PSD restrictions were triggered. Great Basin contends that the PSD restrictions were triggered. That as a consequence EPA's decision to allow division of area 61 was impermissible. That the restrictions were not triggered. That division of area 61 was not arbitrary. These baseline areas are assigned one of three labels attainment. It is classified as a nonattainment area. It is classified as an attainment area. If it is unclear whether the area meets the standards. The area is denominated unclassifiable. It is undisputed that area 61 falls within them.1 [3] In attainment and unclassifiable areas. The PSD restrictions are not automatic. They come into effect when an application is filed under the appropriate regulations for new construction of a major stationary source or for major modification of an existing major source within the area. 40 C.F.R. § 52.21(b)(14)(ii). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1995/95a1095p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We agree with the district court that the parties are not entitled to a jury trial under CERCLA. We will vacate the judgment in favor of the buyer and remand for a hearing on the contractual issues. Whose sole shareholder was and is Alex Kaufman.[fn1] Kaufman had worked at the Fords site for over twenty years and served as the president of Grace's chemical division there from 1962 until the sale in 1978. The site was polluted by the manufacturing operations that had been carried on over the years. The proceedings before the district court have been chronicled in a series of published opinions.[fn2] Although unresolved claims between the parties remain (including potential insurance coverage). One of which we find is dispositive of this appeal. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/564D4A580B7317BE88256CB0000D6EA2/$file/0270986.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Petitioners1 challenge the Department of Transportation's The petitioners in this case are Public Citizen. The combined effect of which will permit Mexico domiciled motor carriers to operate within the United States beyond the current limited border zones. The Department of Transportation decided that there was no need for further environmental analysis. It is useful to examine the legal and regulatory context in which they were promulgated. We will refer to them (as well as the Petitioners Intervenors. Our existing governmental institutions are not adequate to deal with the growing environmental problems and crises the Nation faces. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200706/04-1323a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0377p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Permit holders are generally required both to monitor their effluent discharges and to report these results. If monitoring and reporting requirements are imposed. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200612/04-1200a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200107/99-1457a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Howard I. With them on the briefs were Richard G. III were on the brief for industry intervenors. With them on the brief was Lois J. Assistant Attorney General at the time the brief was filed. Fox were on the brief for intervenor Sierra Club. Case was on the brief for intervenor Environmen tal Technology Council. That is. Deter mines is achievable for new or existing sources.... 42 U.S.C. s 7411(a)(2) </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/28FAF14B92DFA9AE88256C63008306B9/$file/0115939.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We hold that as long as a notice letter is reasonably specific as to the nature and time of the alleged violations. When the suit was filed. Is stored at the Diablo facility and then loaded onto ships that travel over the New York Slough into the Bay. BayKeeper is a nonprofit corporation </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0166p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This was done pursuant to § 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act. Le avitt is automatically substituted for Christine Tod d W hitman. PM10 nonattainment areas are further classified as moderate or serious. NSR is a permit program for major new and modified sources of pollutant. The program requires new or modified sources of pollutant to obtain a permit that requires certain pollution controls and other measures to ensure that the new or modified source will not exacerbate the pollution problem in the area. Then the state is subject to sanctions. (iii) the EPA has determined that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the SIP and other required reductions. Which demonstrates that the area will maintain the NAAQS for at least 10 years after redesignation. The Redesignation of Cleveland Cleveland was designated as a moderate nonattainment area in 1990. Which was supplemented twice. The SIP was fully approved. Stating that it </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991876.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAyLTk1MDBhbV9vcG4ucGRm/02-9500am_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Conclusively determined that no major source permit is required. The judge below held that federal judicial review is prohibited under the circumstances and dismissed the case for failure to state a cause of action. BACKGROUND Because the facts of the case are somewhat technical in nature and intimately intertwined with the Clean Air Act's specific provisions. It is necessary to first lay out its basic framework as it relates to this case. 1. National air quality standards are promulgated by the EPA. 42 U.S.C. § 7409. Whether new construction of polluting facilities is permitted in an area. What kind of controls are required. Depends on whether the area is below or above the standard for each pollutant. Shall be treated as a part of its design only if the limitation or the effect it would have on emissions is federally enforceable. 42 In turn. The District of Columbia Circuit held that this standard was unreasonable because it failed to include mechanisms that are practically effective. A proposed facility that is physically capable of emitting major levels of the relevant pollutants is to be considered a major emitting facility under the Act unless there are legally and practicably enforceable mechanisms in place to make certain that the emissions remain below the relevant levels. 2. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200511314.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Each state's SIP must </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200706/05-1446a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Which is designed to protect air quality in national parks and 2 similar scenic and recreational areas. 42 U.S.C. ch. 85. After the NAAQS is established for a particular pollutant. In areas where pollution was within the national ambient standards. The </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1995/95a1171p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This is an action for a declaratory judgment that a standard comprehensive liability insurance policy covers a liability incurred under the Comprehensive Environmental Response. Central to its resolution is a choice of law issue governed by New Jersey's choice of law rules. We must decide whether New Jersey or Pennsylvania law controls the interpretation of an exception to a pollution exclusion clause when New Jersey has significant contacts with the insurance contract and the insured but Pennsylvania is the site of the hazardous waste site giving rise to the liability for which coverage is sought. We will reverse. [fn1] is a New Jersey company that manufactures high temperature beryllium oxide ceramics at its main manufacturing plant in Haskell. Sales operations were located at the Haskell. Approximately five shipments of contaminated waste from the Haskell facility were transported by private waste haulers to a resource recovery and processing facility in McAdoo. General Ceramics received notice from the United States Department of Environmental Protection ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/April2004/024346p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> STAHR NANCY FLICKINGER This is an appeal from an order of the District Court granting judgment for the plaintiff United States and against defendant Allegheny Ludlum Corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-1767.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> LLP</SPAN> were on brief for defendant. LLP</SPAN> were on brief for plaintiff. Appeals from a district court judgment declaring that Utica Mutual Insurance Company ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-2138.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> LLP were on brief. Allen & Snyder were on brief. L.L.P. were on brief. Were on brief. LLP were on brief. Are thirteen corporations which received notices from the U.S. We conclude that the record was insufficient to permit a meaningful equitable allocation of remediation costs against any of these defendants under § 9613(f). Sullivan's Ledge was the source of smoke dense enough periodically to obscure the visibility of drivers on nearby roads. Which it believed were legally responsible for the decades long pollution at the site. NETT argued that its waste added so few PAHs to the mix compared to the overall quantity of PAHs found at Sullivan's Ledge that NETT could not fairly be said to have contributed to the environmental harm or </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-2369.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.A.</U> were on brief. Welte P.A.</U> was on brief. P.A.</U> were on brief. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan2003/02-10149.opn.html">MCABEE V. CITY OF FORT PAYNE (1/23/2003, NO. 02-10149)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200611311.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The resulting product is smoke that includes both carbon black and waste gases. The carbon black is separated from the gases. Formed into small CSRC's relationship with CCC was the subject of some dispute during this litigation. CSRC does not challenge the district court's finding that it is CCC's parent corporation. The separating process occurs in stages using filters located in what is known in the industry as bagfilter compartments. If everything is working perfectly. The remaining gasses are expelled through exhaust towers. Continental installed a thermal oxidizer for the purpose of combusting any carbon black particles that escape either production unit before the air emanating from the bagfilter compartments is expelled. All of whom are Georgia citizens. Emotional distress in connection with carbon black contamination of both of his properties. 2 Some of the properties are only approximately a ½ mile from Continental's Phenix City 4 plant. Action Marine alleges that the carbon black damaged its inventory of boats to such an extent that the company was forced to sell those it could at a loss. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200612370.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who are state environmental regulators and local political actors. Brought a section 1983 suit against various state and local defendants on the theory that the defendants violated its constitutional right to equal protection by </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTY2OTItYWdfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-6692-ag_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That is intended to protect aquatic organisms from being harmed or killed by cooling water intake structures at large. While we conclude that certain aspects of the rule are based on a reasonable interpretation of the Clean Water Act and supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record. Several aspects of the rule are not consistent with the statute. Are not supported by sufficient evidence. Or were not properly subject to notice and comment. We therefore grant in part and deny in part the petitions for review and dismiss in part one aspect of the petitions for lack of jurisdiction because there is no final agency action to review. Circuit Judge: This is a case about fish and other aquatic organisms. 1 that is intended to protect fish. Concluding that certain aspects of the EPA's rule are based on a reasonable interpretation of the Act and supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record. Remanding several aspects of the rule because they are inadequately explained or inconsistent with the statute. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200012/99-1325a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Arline M. With him on the briefs was Howard I. With him on the brief were Lois J. Bumpers was on the brief for amicus curiae the American Portland Cement Alliance. We (1) reject its argument that EPA's use of particulate matter as a surrogate for non volatile metal hazardous air pollutants vio lates the Clean Air Act and is arbitrary and capricious. Hazardous air pollutants are known as HAPs. A </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/044546p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> At issue is whether the Comprehensive Environmental Response. We will overrule United States v. I. The material facts are undisputed. The DuPont Newport Superfund Site is an industrial site in Delaware. The site was identified in the early 1980s as a potential threat to human health. It was placed on CERCLA's National Priorities List. The total cost to the government was $1. The District Court held the government's recovery of both </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200007/99-1236a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were David F. With him on the brief were Peter D. Case was on the brief for intervenor Environmen tal Technology Council. Combustors electing to make the necessary changes have three years to comply. Will have any environmental or health benefits. All three types of hazardous waste combustors are regulat ed by Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=03-3277_018.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Those petitions were consolidated before this court. We stay consideration of their challenges to the General Permit pending resolution by the Fifth Circuit as to whether those petitioners are required to obtain a permit in the first instance. The discharge of pollutants into navigable waters is illegal unless authorized by a permit issued pursuant to § 402 of the Act. 33 U.S.C. § 1342. Which was feasible for regulating discharges from wastewater facilities or industrial plants. By the 1980's it became clear that the individual permitting process was unworkable to regulate storm water discharges which can occur virtually anywhere. 56 Fed. Discharges that comply with the terms of the general permit are automatically authorized. Neither of these general permits is at issue in this case. These jurisdic 3 Although the EPA imposed the NPDES permitting requirements on small construction sites (one to five acres) it was not required to do so by statute. The EPA was not required to subject the smaller construction sites to the terms of the General Permit at issue here. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200003/98-1497a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With them on the briefs were Betty D. Were on the brief for intervenor State of Wisconsin. Patberg were on the brief for amicus curiae Toledo Metropolitan Area Council of Govern ments. Carter and Deborah Ann Hottel were on the brief of amici curiae South Carolina Chamber of Commerce. With them on the brief were Lois J. With him on the brief were Elliot Spitzer. With her on the brief was Bruce J. David Hawkins and Raissa Griffin were on the brief for intervenor Natural Resources Defense Council. Meade were on the brief for industry intervenors. Wegman was on the brief for intervenor the Government of Canada. Such plans are then submitted to EPA for approval. Even after a SIP is approved. The statutory hook for EPA's action was a 1990 amendment to the Clean Air Act which requires that SIPs contain </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/02/062371P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which were necessary to prevent the release of further contaminants into soil and groundwater. CBS contends that the injunction did not sufficiently specify which acts were required of it. That the evidence showed there was no need for MERA relief. That is. It was not preempted by MERA. 375 F.3d at 742 46. 2 On remand. The rationale for these specifications was that soil deeper than twelve feet and soil under the building was not immediately accessible to human or ecological </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/99opinions/99-1325a.html">NATIONAL LIME ASSOCIATION V. EPA<BR></A><BR> With him on the briefs were Arline </p> <p>M. Pew argued the cause for petitioner Sierra Club. </p> <p>With him on the briefs was Howard I. With him on the brief were </p> <p>Lois J. Bumpers was on the brief for amicus curiae </p> <p>the American Portland Cement Alliance.</p> <p>Before: Edwards. We (1) </p> <p>reject its argument that EPA's use of particulate matter as a </p> <p>surrogate for non volatile metal hazardous air pollutants vio </p> <p>lates the Clean Air Act and is arbitrary and capricious. Hazardous air pollutants are known as HAPs.</p> <p>A ". Is any stationary source that emits ten </p> <p>tons per year or more of any single HAP or twenty five </p> <p>tons per year or more of any combination of HAPs. Determines is achievable ... through ap </p> <p>plication of measures. These stringency </p> <p>requirements differ depending on whether a source is ". New sources are defined as ". The construction or modification of which is com </p> <p>menced after the publication of regulations (or. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/06/00-7039a.htm">00-7039A -- BOWEN V. AMOCO PIPELINE CO. -- 06/20/2001<BR></A><BR> A copy of the corrected opinion is attached. <p> Sincerely. Which is located on his property. It concluded the source was an upstream historic release of oil. No oil well was close enough to the creek to be the source. The two nearby documented leaks from Koch pipelines could not have contaminated Flag Branch Creek because they were contained within their immediate spill areas. Because wells and documented leaks were not the source. Were Amoco the responsible party. Amoco contended the arbitration panel would have the power to decide <em>all</em> claims. Continuing to deny its lines were the source of hydrocarbon contamination in the creek. It claimed to have provided the Bowens with a line sheet showing the replacement. Which was technical and difficult to read. 000 feet of pipeline was replaced in 1950. <p> Other than the line sheet. Despite some testimony that it was corporate practice to keep such records.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/06/00-7039.htm">00-7039 -- BOWEN V. AMOCO PIPELINE CO. -- 06/20/2001<BR></A><BR> Which is located on his property. It concluded the source was an upstream historic release of oil. No oil well was close enough to the creek to be the source. The two nearby documented leaks from Koch pipelines could not have contaminated Flag Branch Creek because they were contained within their immediate spill areas. (Aplt. 167) Because wells and documented leaks were not the source. Were Amoco the responsible party. Amoco contended the arbitration panel would have the power to decide <em>all</em> claims. Continuing to deny its lines were the source of hydrocarbon contamination in the creek. It claimed to have provided the Bowens with a line sheet showing the replacement. Which was technical and difficult to read. 000 feet of pipeline was replaced in 1950. Despite some testimony that it was corporate practice to keep such records.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F926600A4349D40F88256E5A00707A66/$file/9936065.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve is a place of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A21A1A97EE088475882569FC00622D20/$file/9936065.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve is a place of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/603F1721B67696D188256B9C004E10FF/$file/0116111.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> BayKeeper contended that California was years behind in implementing a TMDL program. States are required to identify such waters. Which are to be designated as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan2003/02-10149.opn.html">MCABEE V. CITY OF FORT PAYNE (1/23/2003, NO. 02-10149)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-1505a.html">ETHYL CORP V. EPA<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/054992np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will reverse only so that the District Court may reconsider its decision in light of our holding that one of the seventy seven cases presented did not arise from the same occurrence as the other seventy six. We will set forth only those facts necessary for our analysis. The factual background of this case is undisputed. Sunoco is part of a global petrochemical corporation that manufactures and markets petroleum products. An additive that was originally thought to reduce the amount of carbon released into the air during the burning of gasoline. Sunoco was a named defendant in seventy seven lawsuits asserting claims based on Sunoco's manufacture and distribution of gasoline containing MtBE. Sixty of those lawsuits were consolidated into Multi District Litigation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-2151.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiffs Appellants Defenders of Wildlife and Forest Guardians are environmental advocacy groups. Was not arbitrary and capricious. A. The Clean Water Act The CWA was adopted </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/382A2E21DF25A83788256A0D00615FDE/$file/9935373.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The court held that the canals were waters of the United States covered by the Clean Water Act. That the active ingredient in Magnacide H was a pollutant. The court concluded that no permit was required because the label on the herbicide. The active ingredient in Magna3067 cide H is acrolein. TID does not have. 000 juvenile steelhead were killed. The complaint alleged that TID is in violation of the CWA. That the irrigation canals were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Mar2002/993505up.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court concluded that HOVIC's claim was unambiguously excluded from coverage under Zurich's policy. We will reverse. The unit was to be used in the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199903/97-1637a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Lois J. (B) that such activities will not (I) cause or contribute to any new violation of any standard in any area. Heads of federal agencies have </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200306/02-1123a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6BD238AF5C92BA1688256E5A00707CF7/$file/0016895.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Defendants Appellees. *Christie Todd Whitman is substituted for her predecessor. Circuit Judge: The question presented by this appeal is whether the actions of the Administrator of the EPA in failing or refusing to find a violation of the Clean Water Act. Are discretionary decisions of the Administrator that are not subject to judicial review under the Act. We conclude that both decisions are discretionary and therefore not subject to review. The Sierra Club sued the EPA defendants for their failure to take any action against the City of Nogales or the International Boundary and Water Commission ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2002/00-14975.opn.html">BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE, INC. V. CITY OF N. MIAMI (3/1/2002, NO. 00-14975)<BR></A><BR> The City was required to clean up the land by a consent decree it had entered into with the United States Environmental Protection Agency in settlement of a lawsuit the EPA had brought against the City under the Comprehensive Environmental Response. The City believed that Blasland was not entitled to payment because it had been negligent in doing the work. This litigation is the fruit of their disagreement. </SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1059C3EA72F8F22388256ED20074C589/$file/0315023.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. I. WaterKeepers Northern California is a non profit corporation dedicated to protecting wildlife and preserving natural resources in the San Francisco Bay and the Sacramento San Joaquin Delta ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/04/993684P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The name of this entity was changed to Crompton Co./Cie. 1 * * Washington Legal Foundation. That was originally developed by the federal government in the 1930s as a munitions factory. In the late 1940s the site was sold to a now defunct company called Reasor Hill Corporation (Reasor Hill). That is now viewed as hazardous to humans. Other wastes were stored in numerous drums stacked in a field on the site. Hercules did not learn of the Agent Orange is made from a mixture of 2. Dioxin was subsequently linked to cancer. By then there were nearly 29. Contamination was also found in other areas of the site. In grounds adjacent to the site. 7 Uniroyal was a customer of Vertac's and purchased 2. 5 T that was to be shipped back to Uniroyal. This arrangement (a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A8E866ED283F934888256E5A00707A8B/$file/9935373.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The court held that the canals were waters of the United States covered by the Clean Water Act. That the active ingredient in Magnacide H was a pollutant. The court concluded that no permit was required because the label on the herbicide. The active ingredient in Magna3067 cide H is acrolein. TID does not have. 000 juvenile steelhead were killed. The complaint alleged that TID is in violation of the CWA. That the irrigation canals were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200706/06-1023a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the briefs was Hope M. With him on the brief were John C. Thomas Richichi were on the brief for amici curiae Air Transport Association of America. Petitioner also argues that the Final Rule is arbitrary and capricious because it relies upon an insufficient time rationale. We hold that EPA's interpretation of § 231 is not manifestly contrary to the CAA and that the agency did not otherwise act arbitrarily and capriciously in promulgating the Final Rule. Most of the arbitrary and capricious claims raised by NACAA are not properly before the court. Because they were never raised with 3 EPA. Because we find that none of NACAA's claims are meritorious. Are required to adopt State Implementation Plans (`SIPs') that `provide[] for implementation. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200310262.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Shaw Industries' Plants No. 2 and No. 80.1 The Sierra Club contends that EPA is required to object to the King Finishing permit because Georgia EPD failed to implement a mailing list to notify the public of its right to comment on the permit. Navigating through the intricacies of the Clean Air Act is no task for the uninformed or the short winded. We will focus our beginning discussion on Title V of that Act. Following changes in ownership after their title V permits were issued. That issue is no longer before us because the parties have settled it. 1 3 In 1990 Congress amended the Clean Air Act to include Title V. The public to understand better the requirements to which the source is subject. Whether the source is meeting those requirements. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may95/93-4762.opa.html">HAVES V. CITY OF MIAMI<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Haves v. Facts</i><p> <p> Appellants Stanley and Marjorie Haves have lived aboard a houseboat<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Sep2004/Sep08/02-60991-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The EPA is charged with identifying air pollutants that endanger the public health and welfare. See 40 C.F.R. pt. 50.9(a).1 The </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001489.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A citizens group </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may95/93-4762.opa.html">HAVES V. CITY OF MIAMI<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Haves v. Facts</i><p> <p> Appellants Stanley and Marjorie Haves have lived aboard a houseboat<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jul1998/98a1908p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. I. The underlying facts of this case are undisputed and are comprehensively set forth in the district court's published opinion. Is a wholly owned subsidiary of Dean Foods. Which was damaged as a result. There is no dispute that because Dean Dairy issued monitoring reports to Union Township on a monthly basis. The United States moved for and was granted summary judgment on the issue of Dean Dairy's liability for the CWA violations. The action against the Municipal Authority of Union Township was settled and therefore the Authority is not a party to this appeal. Its appeal is limited to the amount of the civil penalty imposed. The district court found these efforts were belated and ineffective. It was only the construction of a $865. Important to the issue before us is that Dean Dairy considered various options to meet its permit obligations but. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/418CD20A4501BD7288256F63007B5F12/$file/0315584.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> In between the carryover paragraph (which ends with </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-4147_025.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court held that Agency was not entitled to recover costs attributable to certain claims because those claims were not covered by an insurance policy Pacific issued to Agency. Agency came forward with sufficient evidence that Pacific's policy should have covered an estoppel claim made 2 Nos. 04 4147 & 05 1471 against Agency in the underlying litigation. Facts Agency is an intergovernmental cooperative. It consists of member Illinois school districts and is organized to provide joint self insurance for the member school districts. There are two insurance policies at issue in this case. The first is a general liability insurance policy ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar2002/00-14975.opn.html">BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE, INC. V. CITY OF N. MIAMI (3/1/2002, NO. 00-14975)<BR></A><BR> The City was required to clean up the land by a consent decree it had entered into with the United States Environmental Protection Agency in settlement of a lawsuit the EPA had brought against the City under the Comprehensive Environmental Response. The City believed that Blasland was not entitled to payment because it had been negligent in doing the work. This litigation is the fruit of their disagreement. </SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-1224_036.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> By physically modifying the plants without first obtaining from the EPA a permit that the agency 2 No. 06 1224 contends is required by EPA regulation 40 C.F.R. § 52.21 for the type of modification that Cinergy made. (Other regulations are applicable to some of Cinergy's facilities but are materially identical to section 52.21. Cinergy will be required to retrofit the plants with costly pollution control equipment ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9C5F003A71835BD888256AD90005942E/$file/0016895.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Defendants Appellees. *Christie Todd Whitman is substituted for her predecessor. Circuit Judge: The question presented by this appeal is whether the actions of the Administrator of the EPA in failing or refusing to find a violation of the Clean Water Act. Are discretionary decisions of the Administrator that are not subject to judicial review under the Act. We conclude that both decisions are discretionary and therefore not subject to review. The Sierra Club sued the EPA defendants for their failure to take any action against the City of Nogales or the International Boundary and Water Commission ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-3941_021.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This suit charges that the defendant violated the Clean Water Act by discharging pollutants into navigable waters from </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/04/02-2030.htm">02-2030 -- AMIGOS BRAVOS V. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY -- 04/02/2003<BR></A><BR> The suit was dismissed as moot when the EPA issued Molycorp a permit with respect to the pollution at issue. Contending that their lawsuit was what caused the EPA to act. The catalyst theory permits a plaintiff to recover costs even when the defendant's acts render the suit moot if the plaintiff can </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-4164.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Defending oneself from a largescale class action lawsuit is a costly task. So it comes as no surprise that these two parties are before us to determine who should foot the bill for the defense of a 1999 lawsuit filed by approximately 10. 000 current or former Chicago Housing Authority (CHA) residents who claimed they have been exposed to and harmed by environmental contaminants while living on CHA's public housing property. The claims asserted by the plaintiffs in the underlying class action are not covered by the policy. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/99opinions/99-1325b.html">NATIONAL LIME ASSOCIATION V. EPA<BR></A><BR> With him on the briefs were Arline </P> <P>M. Pew argued the cause for petitioner Sierra Club. </P> <P>With him on the briefs was Howard I. With him on the brief were </P> <P>Lois J. Bumpers was on the brief for amicus curiae </P> <P>the American Portland Cement Alliance.</P> <BR WP= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr99/97-8726.man.html">JOHANSEN V. COMBUSTION ENG'G, INC. (4/1/1999, NO. 97-8726)<BR></A><BR> All parties have appealed.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> In the 1920's. Graves Mountain was essentially a big. One of the minerals in the tailings was pyrite. The two suits were consolidated. Property owners' claim was that the streams looked and smelled bad. Or any other economic loss.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/12/983816P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The appellants in these cases are various plaintiff class 4 members who object to the approval of the settlement of this class action and to other orders entered by the district court1 over the course of the litigation. That the settlement agreement was not fair. That the district court's award of attorney fees to the other class counsel was excessive. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/08/00-5113.htm">00-5113 -- HAYES V. WHITMAN -- 08/29/2001<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/023727p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The main issue presented in these appeals is Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). Because we conclude that the District Court's referral was an improper delegation of its traditional adjudicatory function. Factual Background and Procedural History This is the second time this CERCLA contribution action has been before us. The chief tasks on remand were to determine which of Beazer's response costs were necessary and consistent with the National Contingency Plan (NCP). The court may allocate response costs among liable parties using such equitable factors as the court determines are appropriate </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/10119E9B8B5FC02688256DCE0076610E/$file/0171356.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is hereby amended as follows: DAVIS v. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan2002/00-12310.ord.html">TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTH. V. U.S. E.P.A.(1/8/2002, NO. 00-12310)<BR></A><BR> Petitions for review of three orders issued to it by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200516904.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Have failed to comply with this Court's order in Parker v. Defendant was ordered to pay a total of $1 million in damages to the plaintiff. Defendant was further ordered to implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. 3 reversed the damages award because the district court did not instruct the jury that damages were only recoverable by a party that owned or occupied the Parker property during the relevant time period. Parker's children were included in the damage award. Defendants are deemed to have a permit by rule and do not need any other solid waste handling permits. Plaintiffs failed to provide clear and convincing evidence that defendants were in violation of the district court's order to develop and implement a legally sufficient SWPPP. STANDARD OF REVIEW There are three issues presented on appeal: I. A defendant's present ability to comply with a court order is subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review. The district court is in the best position to weigh the competing interests set forth in § 1367(c) and [United Mine Workers v. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/05/98-6209a.htm">98-6209A -- TOSCO CORPORATION V. KOCH INDUSTRIES, INC. -- 05/26/2000<BR></A><BR> On the relative period during which the Refinery was operated while under Koch's ownership. <p> Upon consideration. An amended opinion is attached to this order. <p> <strong>Entered by the Court:</strong> <p> <strong> WADE BRORBY</strong> <p> <strong> </strong>United States Circuit Judge <p> <strong><img src= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/05/98-6209.htm">98-6209 -- TOSCO CORP. V. KOCH INDUSTRIES INC. -- 05/02/2000<BR></A><BR> The district court declared Koch responsible for its fair share (fifteen percent) of all past and future response costs and damages Tosco incurred or will incur while investigating and remediating environmental contamination at the abandoned Duncan. Resource Recovery Company and Energy Realty International are the current owners of the Refinery. <p> <u>Refinery Operations</u> <p> Koch. Koch's asphalt plant was shutdown after Sunray built the coker in 1954. <p> Refinery operations. These areas are probable sources of underground contamination. That further investigation and remedial action was necessary and requested that Tosco and Sun conduct such activity jointly. Total costs are likely to exceed $2. Resource Recovery and Energy Realty were tried to the court in February 1998. Koch was the only defendant that appeared and defended these remaining claims. Energy Realty either no longer exist or are insolvent. <p> In March 1998. Tosco is entitled to recover response costs from any person who is liable or potentially liable under CERCLA </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199808/97-1117a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With them on the briefs were Mel S. With them on the brief were Lois J. Weinberg were on the brief for intervenor Battery Council International. Gail Lewkowicz was on the brief for amici curiae State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators (STAP PA) and Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials (ALAPCO). They allege that the rule is illegal for various reasons. We hold that the issues they raise are unripe and cannot be decided at this time. Emission standards for stationary sources of hazardous air pollutants for which no ambient air quality standard is applicable are issued pursuant to s 112. Congress rewrote s 112 to include a list of 189 toxic air pollutants that EPA was required to regulate. A reference test is any </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan2002/00-12310.ord.html">TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTH. V. U.S. E.P.A.(1/8/2002, NO. 00-12310)<BR></A><BR> Petitions for review of three orders issued to it by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200103/99-1325b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Arline M. With him on the briefs was Howard I. With him on the brief were Lois J. Bumpers was on the brief for amicus curiae the American Portland Cement Alliance. We (1) reject its argument that EPA's use of particulate matter as a surrogate for non volatile metal hazardous air pollutants vio lates the Clean Air Act and is arbitrary and capricious. Hazardous air pollutants are known as HAPs. A </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/05/95-9525.htm">95-9525 -- MAIER V. U.S. EPA -- 05/28/1997<BR></A><BR> Maier contended that recent developments in municipal wastewater technology have rendered the EPA's regulations for secondary treatment inadequate. A </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200502/03-1222a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Peter S. With him on the brief were John C. With him on the brief were Terry Goddard. Bloomfield were on the brief for intervenors Phelps Dodge Corporation. Senior Circuit Judge: Haze obscuring the Grand Canyon and various other national parks and wilderness areas in the west is a multi state problem. To determine whether the rule was better than BART. EPA was to consider four factors </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1994/94a0828p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was bound by a promise to pay Beazer all or part of Beazer's response costs on a Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act. The magistrate judge had concluded that Mead was a responsible party for purposes of CERCLA but that the asset purchase agreement ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/95opinions/95-1006a.html">NATL MINING ASSN V. EPA<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6237B1B27E6F7B7588256D65007EE477/$file/0171356.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The EPA denied the waiver on the ground that California had not clearly demonstrated that a waiver would have a beneficial effect on ozone pollution. Ruled that it was unnecessary to consider the effect a waiver would have on particulate matter pollution. Each state is required to adopt an implementation plan to meet the NAAQS for each air quality control region within the state. The primary choices of oxygenates to add to RFG to reach the two percent oxygen level are ethanol and methyl tertiary butyl ether ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr99/97-8726.man.html">JOHANSEN V. COMBUSTION ENG'G, INC. (4/1/1999, NO. 97-8726)<BR></A><BR> All parties have appealed.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> In the 1920's. Graves Mountain was essentially a big. One of the minerals in the tailings was pyrite. The two suits were consolidated. Property owners' claim was that the streams looked and smelled bad. Or any other economic loss.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec2000/001116.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The District Court should have declined to exercise jurisdiction. We will vacate the judgment and direct that the complaint be dismissed. Underlying this controversy is a suit for damages brought on behalf of Bryant Dixon. A child who allegedly was 2 poisoned by lead paint in his home. Dixon's complaint against E & J was filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County. E & J would have no insurance protection against the Dixon claim. Both courts held that pollution exclusion clauses similar to the one at issue here were ambiguous. Ther efore the insurers were required to defend and indemnify the insured property owners. The policyholders in Lititz have since petitioned the state supreme court for allocatur. The case was argued in September 2000. United States District Courts within this cir cuit also have examined the pollution exclusion's application to lead poisoning cases. Contemplates that district courts will exercise discretion in determining whether to entertain such actions. The Court emphasized that the jurisdiction conferred by the Act was discretionary. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/061215p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Part of the legislation implementing an international anti pollution treaty to which the United States is a signatory. His offense did not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/may97/95-9525.wpd.html">MAIER V. EPA<BR></A><BR> Maier contended that recent developments in municipal wastewater technology have rendered the EPA's regulations for secondary treatment inadequate. 69 (1980) (1) The Utah Wilderness Association was dismissed from this appeal. A </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0141p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Permit holders are subject to state and federal enforcement actions. The CWA's citizen's suit provision permits any individual who has an interest which is or may be adversely affected to sue to enforce any limitation established by a NPDES permit. § 1365(a) and (g). No compensatory damages are authorized under the CWA. Civil penalties are payable to the United States Treasury. Citizen suits are merely intended to supplement. Provided that: (1) they are initiated prior to the commencement of a citizen's suit. (2) are diligently prosecuted. (3) are brought in a court of the United States or any State court. § 1365(b)(1)(B). Where a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/oct96/93-2315.wpd.html">CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE V. BROWNER<BR></A><BR> Muys of Will & Muys. 101 Stat. 76 (codified at 33 U.S.C. 1251 1387). (2) The other two critical elements to tribal sovereignty are land and mineral rights. (3) See Amicus Curiae Br. of the New Mexico Municipal League in Support of Appellant City of Albuquerque. One measure is an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/044208np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because this opinion is not precedential and the parties are familiar with the details. Concluding that there was an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0299p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. BACKGROUND The background of this case is thoroughly discussed in the findings of fact of the district court. CFE's basic complaint is that MHSAA discriminates against female high school athletes by scheduling girls' sports to play in disadvantageous. Our task is now to reevaluate this claim in light of the Supreme Court's GVR. CFE responds by contending that Rancho Palos Verdes does not apply to the present case and that CFE is therefore entitled to prevail under both Title IX and § 1983. Standard of review Constitutional and statutory interpretation questions are issues of law. Or recent developments that we have reason to believe the court below did not fully consider. A GVR order is . . . potentially appropriate. 167 (1996) (holding that a GVR is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BF21423C5BDAA1D788256F0300576EF8/$file/0315584.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Grand Canyon alleges that Tucson Electric's 1977 construction permit for Springerville was invalid for several related reasons and. Grand Canyon is a non profit environmental organization dedicated to conserving the natural resources of the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200005/98-1196a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Michael B. With him on the briefs were David S. With them on the briefs were Lois Schiffer. With her on the brief were Wil liam W. Petitioners' principal contention is that EPA has granted too much authority to tribes. The first is whether Congress expressly delegated to Native American nations authority to regulate air quality on all land within reservations. Including fee land held by private land owners who are not tribe members. The second is whether EPA has properly construed </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200604/05-5015a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Greer S. With him on the brief was Stewart T. Alexandra Dapolito Dunn were on the brief for amici curiae Combined Sewer Overflow Partnership and National Association of Clean Water Act Agencies in support of appellees. Is sufficiently pliant to mean a measure of time other than daily. See 33 U.S.C. § 1342(a)(1) (authorizing EPA to issue effluent discharge permits </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr96/94-8402.opa.html">HUGHEY V. JMS DEVEL. CORP.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Hughey v. INTRODUCTION<p> <p> Appellant JMS Development Corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1781.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Chaffin and Hare & Chaffin were on brief. Burpee and Burpee & DeMoura were on brief. There was a damages verdict of over $7 million. We believe there was error in the striking of post judgment motions and that the claims were timely filed under the Massachusetts discovery rule. I. Background 3 We recite the facts as the jury and district court could have found them. The wastewater was fed through pipes. The polymers were to attach to the 4 contaminants and then aggregate them to form larger particles. The floc was to settle out of the water and form sludge at the bottom of a clarifying tank. Was absolutely critical to the success of the wastewater treatment system. One mechanism designed to create the necessary turbulence is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/98opinions/98-1512a.html">APPALACHIAN POWER CO. ET AL., V. EPA<BR></A><BR> Freeman argued the cause for petitioners. </P> <P>With her on the briefs were Henry V. With him on the briefs </P> <P>were Lois J. This </P> <P>was to be accompanied by a legal opinion from the State's </P> <P>attorney general that the laws of the State contained suffi </P> <P>cient authority to authorize the State to implement the pro </P> <P>gram. The permit may specify a streamlined set of </P> <P> monitoring or testing provisions provided the specified </P> <P> monitoring or testing is adequate to assure compliance at </P> <P> least to the same extent as the monitoring or testing </P> <P> applicable requirements that are not included in the </P> <P> permit as a result of such streamlining. </P> <P> </P> <P> (B) Where the applicable requirement does not re </P> <P> quire periodic testing or instrumental or noninstrumental </P> <P> monitoring (which may consist of record keeping de </P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P> 2 The list is nicely summarized in David R. Periodic monitoring suffi </P> <P> cient to yield reliable data from the relevant time period </P> <P> that are representative of the source's compliance with </P> <P> the permit. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/07/013522P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Finding that FAG was precluded from relitigating the relevant issues regarding coverage because they had been decided in an earlier action between Liberty and FAG. I. BACKGROUND This is the second time these two parties have appeared in a case before this court.3 In 1994. The underlying facts in this case have been detailed in a number of earlier opinions. The LM I court found that these releases fell within the pollution exclusion clause in FAG's liability insurance policy because they were not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/EC25D7C006DAC74188256EC3007B52E5/$file/0235751.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: We consider whether grass residue remaining after a Kentucky bluegrass harvest is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1074.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for respondent. Adams has not persuaded us that he was wrongfully denied an evidentiary hearing or that the Agency otherwise erred in its treatment of his objections. Because Seabrook's septic systems were failing. Effluent was flowing into Seabrook's coastal waters. Will consist of a collection and transportation system. The plant will discharge its treated effluent in approximately 30 feet of water. No pollutant may be emitted into this nation's waters unless a NPDES permit is obtained. NPDES permits are issued by the EPA or. Whether a discharge will cause </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4E67A476946BE09988256AD3000B342D/$file/9971397.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction to review the NEPA claims. Because it was approved in a separate agency action and OPA vests review of such plans in the district court. It is a harsh environment: the average annual temperature is eleven degrees Fahrenheit. Some wells are to be in the federal portions of the reservoir. Will carry oil from Seal Island to the shore. Will carry natural gas to Seal Island for use as fuel. The oil pipeline will run for eleven miles above ground to a connection with the Trans Alaska Pipeline. The Trans Alaska Pipeline will transport Northstar oil to Valdez. Tankers will carry the oil to ports in the western U.S. and abroad. Production from the project is expected to last fifteen years. A single EIS was prepared by the Corps. Is an international environmental organization. The individual petitioners are Inupiat Eskimos who maintain that the approval of Northstar threatens their ability to continue hunting. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1999/987515.TXT">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The facts of this case are tragic. While the boy was anesthetized. This appeal is from a declaratory judgment action in which Watkins' insurance company. 2 sought a ruling that Watkins and his partnership were not covered by the Medical Protective policies. The significant policy language was a clause that excluded coverage for </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/apr97/96-4166.wpd.html">CHEMICAL WEAPONS WORKING GROUP, INC. V. UNITED STATES DEP'T OF THE ARMY<BR></A><BR> Which is currently located at Johnston Island in the Pacific Ocean and at eight different sites in the continental United States. Operational chemical weapons incineration plant on Johnston Island that was designed to serve as the prototype for incinerators at other stockpile sites such as Tooele. The Secretary of Defense certified to Congress that testing at Johnston Atoll was complete. Was engaged by the Army to monitor. The National Research Council's Committee on Review and Evaluation of the Army Chemical Stockpile Disposal Program (Stockpile Committee) was also chartered to monitor the Army's testing at Johnston Atoll and to review the test results reported by the MITRE Corporation. None were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/06/991456P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Jurisdiction was proper in the district court based upon 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331. Jurisdiction is proper in this court based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The notices of appeal were timely filed pursuant to Fed. Background The following is a brief summary of the undisputed facts as set forth in greater detail in the district court's summary judgment order dated November 3. Which was located within a 23.8acre tract of land owned and operated as a railroad switching yard by a corporate predecessor of UP. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr96/94-8402.opa.html">HUGHEY V. JMS DEVEL. CORP.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Hughey v. INTRODUCTION<p> <p> Appellant JMS Development Corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1997/97a1572p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This case comes before us a second time for a determination whether New Jersey's regulation of the disposal of solid waste is constitutional under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Are Atlantic Coast Demolition & Recycling. The latter two plaintiffs are. The defendants are the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). The Carbone plaintiffs and the defendants have appealed the district court's decision. We will affirm the district court's findings that New Jersey's flow control laws and regulations are unconstitutional insofar as they discriminate against out of state waste processing facilities. We will not. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291. I. FACTS As this nation's prosperity and consumption have increased over the years. States have attempted to meet those concerns by limiting or banning the importation of solid waste. States and municipalities have erected barriers to the exportation of solid waste in the hope that in state control of solid waste facilities will protect their communities from environmental harm. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-3809.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The defendant Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (MMSD) and its predecessor organization have. The discharges were reduced in number and volume after MMSD's system's capacity was expanded by the Deep Tunnel. Which was completed in 1994. Discharges from sanitary sewers (which 2 No. 03 3809 violate the Clean Water Act and MMSD's discharge permit) have persisted despite expectations that the Deep Tunnel would virtually eliminate them. Dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the suit was barred by the terms of the Clean Water Act. I. Background MMSD is a state chartered government agency providing wastewater services to 28 municipalities in southeast Wisconsin. Separate sewers have separate pipes for storm water (which empties directly into area waterways) and sanitary waste (which empties into MMSD's system where it can be treated). Which are mostly older sewer systems. Are designed to carry both storm water and sanitary waste in the same pipes.1 MMSD's discharge permit There are advantages and disadvantages to combined sewer systems. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/041832np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Before us is an appeal by Appellant Lehigh Valley Ice Arena ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200012/99-1502a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Eric R. With her on the brief was Lois J. The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 is now more than ten years old. The Coast Guard admits that it will not under take any rulemaking in the future. The Coast Guard's earlier temporary compliance standards are of no moment. Is that the agency's failure to pursue rulemaking once the temporary regulations expired was a blatant violation of the statute. The Coast Guard asserts that petitioners should have brought their mandamus claims re garding regulation of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-2359.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Ciechon Jr. were on brief for petitioner. Were on brief for respondent. That concern is not allayed by the agency's explanation for its decision. The result is so odd that either the EPA has abused its discretion or it has explained itself so poorly as to require further justification. The permitting regime is a hybrid one in which both EPA and the counterpart state agency play a role. No such delegation is present here. Puerto Rico is treated as a state for purposes of the Clean Water Act. Its local agency is the Environmental Quality Board ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200204/99-1452a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Peter E. With them on the brief was John C. With him on the brief was Richard Wasserstrom. Their challenge is confined to that portion of the Final Rule promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199809/97-5009b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> United States Attorney at the time the briefs were filed. Were on the briefs. Javitt were on the briefs. Stanley was on the briefs. Frey was on the briefs for amicus curiae Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. Hedg peth were on the briefs for amicus curiae The Jane Goodall Institute for Wildlife Research. The regulated parties are not obligated to make them available to members of the public. Jurnove's affidavit is an uncontested statement of the injuries that he has suffered to his aesthetic interest in observing animals living under humane conditions. 49 (D.D.C. 1996) (granting summary judgment to plaintiffs on all legal claims except one that plaintiffs have not appealed. [he is] very familiar with the needs of and proper treatment of wildlife. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200210149.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The question presented is whether the Alabama Water Pollution Control Act (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200004/98-1512a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the briefs were Henry V. With him on the briefs were Lois J. This was to be accompanied by a legal opinion from the State's attorney general that the laws of the State contained suffi cient authority to authorize the State to implement the pro gram. The permit may specify a streamlined set of monitoring or testing provisions provided the specified monitoring or testing is adequate to assure compliance at least to the same extent as the monitoring or testing applicable requirements that are not included in the permit as a result of such streamlining. (B) Where the applicable requirement does not re quire periodic testing or instrumental or noninstrumental monitoring (which may consist of record keeping de 2 The list is nicely summarized in David R. Periodic monitoring suffi cient to yield reliable data from the relevant time period that are representative of the source's compliance with the permit. The key language key because this dispute revolves around it is in the first sentence of s 70.6(a)(3)(i)(B). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/305546C2DD86DE6A88256E00005FC9D3/$file/0171902.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Geoffrey Wilcox also were on the briefs. McDonough also were on the briefs. Guthery also were on the brief. 2003 is hereby amended as follows: Slip. Lines 10 8 from the bottom: Replace the sentence that currently reads </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-7105.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Only when (1) the plaintiffs have given proper notice of the alleged violation to the defendants. The state in which the alleged CWA violations have occurred. (2) the EPA is not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-5178a.html">FL AUDBN SCTY V. BENTSEN L.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/945796.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Line 17 a closing parenthesis is added after </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/99opinions/99-1452a.html">NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION V. EPA<BR></A><BR> Et al.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200402/01-1053a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/97opinions/97-5009b.html">ANIMAL LEG DEF FUND V. GLICKMAN DANIEL<BR></A><BR> </i>United States Attorney <p> at the time the briefs were filed. Were on the briefs.<p> <p> <i>Harris Weinstein</i> argued the cause for appellant National <p> Association for Biomedical Research. Javitt</i> were on the briefs.<p> <p> <i>Katherine A. Stanley</i> was on the briefs.<p> <p> <i>Andrew L. Frey </i>was on the briefs for <i>amicus curiae</i> <p> Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.<p> <p> <i>Leslie G. Hedg <p> peth</i> were on the briefs for <i>amicus</i> <i>curiae</i> The Jane Goodall <p> Institute for Wildlife Research. The regulated parties are not obligated to make them <p> available to members of the public. <i>See id.</i><p> <p> The individual plaintiffs. Jurnove's affidavit is an uncontested statement of the <p> injuries that he has suffered to his aesthetic interest in <p> observing animals living under humane conditions. <i>See Ani <p> mal Legal Defense Fund. <p> 49 (D.D.C. 1996) (granting summary judgment to plaintiffs on <p> all legal claims except one that plaintiffs have not appealed. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-2361.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Jr.\ (former Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of\ Environmental Protection) have been substituted with Deval Patrick\ and Arleen O\'Donnell (Acting Commissioner of the Massachusetts\ Department of Environmental Protection) in both No. 06 2361 and No.\ 06 2362. <span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CAA05FF49E43747588256E5A00707CEB/$file/9971397.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction to review the NEPA claims. Because it was approved in a separate agency action and OPA vests review of such plans in the district court. It is a harsh environment: the average annual temperature is eleven degrees Fahrenheit. Some wells are to be in the federal portions of the reservoir. Will carry oil from Seal Island to the shore. Will carry natural gas to Seal Island for use as fuel. The oil pipeline will run for eleven miles above ground to a connection with the Trans Alaska Pipeline. The Trans Alaska Pipeline will transport Northstar oil to Valdez. Tankers will carry the oil to ports in the western U.S. and abroad. Production from the project is expected to last fifteen years. A single EIS was prepared by the Corps. Is an international environmental organization. The individual petitioners are Inupiat Eskimos who maintain that the approval of Northstar threatens their ability to continue hunting. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/98opinions/98-1526b.html">ALLIED LOCAL AND REGIONAL MANUFACTURERS CAUCUS V. EPA<BR></A><BR> With him on the briefs were James </p> <p> . With </p> <p>him on the briefs were Christopher G. With him on the brief were </p> <p>Lois J. Steinzor were on the brief for intervenors. </p> <p>Thomas J. The regulations were issued pursuant to section </p> <p>183(e) of the Clean Air Act. Petitioners are Dunn Edwards Corporation. Intervening on EPA's side are </p> <p>other industry groups including the National Paint &. </p> <p>that EPA's regulations are lawful and deny the petitions for </p> <p>review.</p> <p>I</p> <p>The Clean Air Act. One of the </p> <p>pollutants so identified and regulated by the agency is </p> <p>ground level ozone. Man made ozone </p> <p>can have a wide array of negative effects on human health. Is aimed at mitigating the </p> <p>problem of ground level ozone. The </p> <p>Senate Environment and Public Works Committee explained the </p> <p>impact of ground level ozone on human health:</p> <p>Ozone is fatal at high concentrations. </p> <p>increased susceptibility to respiratory infections.</p> <p>Potentially more troubling and less well understood are the </p> <p>effects of long term chronic exposure to summertime ozone </p> <p>concentrations found in many cities. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar97/96-6645.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. OLIN CORP.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Olin contended that CERCLA was not intended to impose liability for conduct predating the statute's enactment. 1520 21 (11th Cir.1995) (upholding Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act because legislative findings were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july99/98-8532.man.html">DRISCOLL V. ADAMS (7/23/1999, NO. 98-8532)<BR></A><BR> Adams argues that the district court was correct in concluding that he is not subject to liability under the Clean Water Act because the Act imposed an impossible condition by requiring him to obtain a discharge permit that was unavailable in the state of Georgia. He also maintains that his discharge falls outside the scope of the Act because it was not a point source discharge of a pollutant into a navigable water as defined by the Act. Other materials from Adams' property into the Spiva Branch stream and thence into the plaintiffs' two ponds while Adams was harvesting timber and developing his property.</P> <P> Adams harvested timber on his property from March 1995 to November 1995. He says his delay in taking preventive measures was the result of inclement weather and winter cold.</P> <P> Adams failed to seek the proper approval from any federal. After all of the timber harvest and much of the development were already completed. Which is required for lawful pollutant discharge under the Clean Water Act. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr98/96-2794.man.html">W. AM. INS. CO. V. BAND & DESENBERG (4/17/1998, NO. 96-2794)<BR></A><BR> Senior Circuit Judge:</P> <P> This is an appeal from the district court's order granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in an insurance declaratory judgment action. Noted that Florida law was not settled on the interpretation of an absolute pollution exclusion. Since the district court's opinion was issued. We hold that the pollution exclusion clause at issue here is not ambiguous. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july99/98-8532.man.html">DRISCOLL V. ADAMS (7/23/1999, NO. 98-8532)<BR></A><BR> Adams argues that the district court was correct in concluding that he is not subject to liability under the Clean Water Act because the Act imposed an impossible condition by requiring him to obtain a discharge permit that was unavailable in the state of Georgia. He also maintains that his discharge falls outside the scope of the Act because it was not a point source discharge of a pollutant into a navigable water as defined by the Act. Other materials from Adams' property into the Spiva Branch stream and thence into the plaintiffs' two ponds while Adams was harvesting timber and developing his property.</P> <P> Adams harvested timber on his property from March 1995 to November 1995. He says his delay in taking preventive measures was the result of inclement weather and winter cold.</P> <P> Adams failed to seek the proper approval from any federal. After all of the timber harvest and much of the development were already completed. Which is required for lawful pollutant discharge under the Clean Water Act. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr98/96-2794.man.html">W. AM. INS. CO. V. BAND & DESENBERG (4/17/1998, NO. 96-2794)<BR></A><BR> Senior Circuit Judge:</P> <P> This is an appeal from the district court's order granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in an insurance declaratory judgment action. Noted that Florida law was not settled on the interpretation of an absolute pollution exclusion. Since the district court's opinion was issued. We hold that the pollution exclusion clause at issue here is not ambiguous. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/07/00-6055.htm">00-6055 -- BUFFORD V. WILLIAMS -- 07/02/2002<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiffs Norman Bufford and Zula Bufford brought this action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against defendants N.A. The total retention lagoon is operated in series. Sewage in the wastewater is broken down by natural biological processes. The treated wastewater in cell No. 3 is appropriate for irrigation and is. The cells in the lagoon are designed to be and function as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C41BF3D4165B1D1E88256DB900713778/$file/0171902.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Geoffrey Wilcox also were on the briefs. McDonough also were on the briefs. Guthery also were on the brief. Environmental Protection Agency lawfully concluded that a Southern California county would have achieved the 24 hour air quality standards required by the Clean Air Act but for the negative effects of transborder emissions from Mexico. 600 square miles in Southeastern California and is bordered by Riverside County to the north. The county's other two major population centers are El Centro and Brawley. The States are responsible for ensuring compliance with both standards for PM 10 and must formulate a state implementation plan ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A0FE639D42C945A5882571D300492BCF/$file/0535806.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.1 I. The current depth of the Columbia River navigation channel is 40 feet. Larger vessels with </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/75A91152C7F41578882570CE007F4C2C/$file/0435052.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/04A529C46C98F5E588256C0500805EEE/$file/0070166.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> In which the EPA is the PSD permit issuer. Alaska is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/08/974310P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is a qui tam action brought on behalf of the United States by relators2 pursuant to the False Claims Act (FCA). The Vertac site was home to various chemical. Some of whom are previous employees of the defendants. The site consists of 92.7 acres and is bounded by both residential and undeveloped areas. The creek is a tributary of the Bayou Meto River. Which is itself a tributary of the Arkansas River. The site was originally developed by the U.S. government in the 1930s as a 23 2 1 activity was deposited in landfills and stored in drums or barrels above ground with little or no attention to human health or environmental consequences. A negotiated remedial plan was subsequently approved and enforced by the district court. The site was purchased by Hercules. The money in the letter of credit was later placed in the trust fund. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/04/971852P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Are assessed in light of the Forest Plan. The Plan was accompanied by an Environmental Impact Statement ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/03/963654P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Rejecting their contention that the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/07/961282P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. Lindsay is a Delaware corporation with its principle place of business in Lindsay. Lindsay was a wholly owned subsidiary of DeKalb Ag Research. DEKALB is a Delaware corporation with its The Honorable Frank J. Magill was an active judge at the time this case was submitted and assumed senior status on April 1. Before the opinion was filed. 2 1 principal place of business in DeKalb. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company is a Connecticut corporation with its principal place of business in Connecticut. 3 Hartford Insurance Company of Illinois is an Illinois corporation with its principal place of business in Illinois. The primary policy excluded from coverage payments that are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/05/012905P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> MSA contends the EPA should have disapproved Missouri's 1998 list of pollution impaired waters because some of the listed waters lacked documentation of pollution. MSA's suit was consolidated with the Sierra Club. Claimed that Missouri's list was underinclusive. States are to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-3907_026.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> One requires as a condition of receiving a permit that a plant or other source of air pollution be designed to have the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0821n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Seeking a declaratory judgment that it was not liable under a liability insurance policy it issued to Production Plating and Valentine Investments. Which was insured by GuideOne. The district court found that the coverage was excluded by the policy. The bankruptcy related automatic stay was lifted as to Valentine. Which likely explains why they were not subject to the decision regarding liability in the separate lawsuit. The issue presented on appeal is whether the district court correctly interpreted the insurance policy issued by Transportation to not cover the liability of its insureds. Summary judgment is only appropriate </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0407p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0358p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0296p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> They have brought a class action against Lafarge for current and future personal and real property damages. We are called upon to decide whether the plaintiffs' class action against the nation's largest cement plant is solid. It is the largest cement manufacturing plant in the nation and has been owned and operated by Lafarge since 1987. Id. at 787 (noting that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0239p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Inc. are wholly owned by John and Judith Rapanos. These parcels are known as the Salzburg. The Rapanos were charged with illegally discharging fill material into protected wetlands at The Hono rable Danny C. The state informed him that the site was likely a regulated wetland and sent him an application for the necessary permits. Noting that the site probably contained wetlands but could be developed if the necessary permits were issued. Goff concluded that there were between 48 and 58 acres of wetlands on the site. Goff was unwilling to do so. Was denied access. The Criminal Proceedings Criminal charges were brought simultaneously with the instant civil action. The trial was moved to Flint. Finding that the court had improperly allowed the United States to pursue a line of questioning that was prejudicial to the defendant. Determined that the line of questioning was not improper and reversed the district court's grant of a new trial and remanded for sentencing. Pine River Bluffs Estates was also added as a defendant. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0348p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Kuhn was sentenced to six months at a halfway house and six months of supervised release following his conviction for improperly discharging a pollutant into navigable waters. Kuhn was the Superintendent of the Bay City. Which is the penultimate stage of the process. The plant was obligated to notify the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) within five days of any accidental spill or bypass of the treatment system. Sludge from the chlorine contact chamber was illegally pumped into a ditch while the chlorine contact chamber was being cleaned. This was done on Kuhn's orders. The Plant was required to submit monthly discharge monitoring reports to the DEQ. Kuhn was subsequently indicted in a four count indictment that charged: first. Kuhn maintains that the high numbers were only for the influent flow and that the numbers for the effluent flow were in line with the mon thly averages. He therefore purportedly concluded that the influent flow numbe rs must have b een incorrect. 2 1 18 U.S.C. § 2. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/042096p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge Appellants in this case are owners and operators of industrial facilities located throughout the United States that are contaminated with hazardous waste. They admit they are responsible for some of the contamination at these sites (which they cleaned up voluntarily). Allege the United States 3 Government is also responsible for some part. The Supreme Court held that § 113 by its express terms is not available to parties that clean up sites voluntarily. Because appellants are themselves partly responsible for the contamination at the subject sites. Their cleanups were voluntary. It is necessary first to understand the applicable legal framework. CERCLA is a broad remedial statute that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/032346p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We also decide that prejudgment interest and the cost of an experimental treatment process are reasonable in a contribution suit under CERCLA section 113. 42 U.S.C. § 9613. The waste was deposited in several lagoons on the site. It was stored in tanks and from there taken to ocean disposal facilities. Which are classified as hazardous materials. Most of the claims were settled. Rexon's stock had been owned by several parent companies.1 Relevant to the case at hand was the purchase by defendant Pullman Corporation in October of 1984 and the sale of all of the stock to a new parent corporation in April 1989. The new parent corporation continued operations using the Rexon name until Rexon was dissolved on June 30. We will use the name of Rexon. To designate the manufacturing entity found to have contributed to the pollution. Little Falls became Rexon's direct shareholder. were served with process on April 17. The critical dispute in that phase of the case was the interpretation of a provision in the 1989 stock purchase agreement assigning responsibility for environmental claims against Pullman and Rexon. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTA3MTgtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-0718-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Held that: (1) joinder of the City to preexisting action was proper. Are certified to the New York Court of Appeals. The District Court interpreted certain state laws and Onondaga County Administrative Code provisions concerning whether or not the approval of the Syracuse Common Council was required before the Commissioner of Drainage and Sanitation could condemn City land for sewer district purposes. The City argues that not only was the District Court precluded from joining it as a party to the litigation. Is located at the southern end of Onondaga Lake. The </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19966645.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The government also notes that pollutants from Olin's operations have appeared off site. He may require the Attorney General of the United States to secure such relief as may be necessary to abate such a danger or threat and the district court ... shall have jurisdiction to grant such relief as the public interest and the equities of the case may require. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19953377.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiffs/appellees/cross appellants ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1707.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.A. was on brief for appellants. P.A. were on brief for appellees. Appeal the district court's summary judgment ruling that no coverage was provided under insurance policies issued to Mottolo by defendants appellees. The two cases were later consolidated. Mottolo and Service then brought this action in the United States District Court for New Hampshire seeking a declaration that the defendant insurance companies are obligated to indemnify them for the costs of cleaning up the dump site. Defendants did not have a duty to indemnify the plaintiffs. Summary judgment is appropriate when </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1540.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Berry & Howard were on brief for Aetna Casualty and Surety Company. Mosseau & Gordon were on brief for American Motorists Insurance Company. Bass & Green Professional Association were on brief for New Hampshire Ball Bearings. This is the second of two TORRUELLA. The question we decide on this appeal is whether a general liability insurance policy which provides coverage for property damage that results from an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-2276.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for appellants. Were on brief for appellee Commissioner. The order of the district court is affirmed. Cars and the Clean Air Act The exhaust from a gasoline powered engine is a source of air pollution. The Clean Air Act is the federal legislation governing tailpipe emissions. States are responsible for developing and enforcing a plan. Mobile sources of air pollution such as cars and trucks are subject to EPA regulation under 202 and 207 of the Act. State regulation of motor vehicle emissions is generally preempted by the Clean Air Act. There can be only two types of cars </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1335.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Meyer & Soloman were on brief for Conservation Law Foundation. P.A. were on brief for Town of Newington. Were on brief for the federal parties. Were on brief for State of New Hampshire and Pease Development Authority. Senior District Judge. whether defendants have complied with various federal environmental laws that apply to the conversion of land on Pease Air Force Base (Pease) in New Hampshire to civilian use incident to the base's closure. Several other interested parties have intervened and. Plaintiffs have appealed from the dismissal of their CAA claims and the denial of injunctive relief. The federal defendants have cross appealed from the finding that they violated CERCLA. Have not appealed the district court's order directing them to prepare a Supplemental FEIS. We have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291. Also before us are petitions filed by CLF and Newington to review an order of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) approving PDA's airport development plan. We have jurisdiction under 49 U.S.C. app. 1486(a) and deny the petitions with respect to the CAA claim and retain jurisdiction of the NEPA claim pending completion of the Supplemental FEIS. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-2116.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Were on brief. That the judgment below is fully supportable. BACKGROUND Because these waters have been so thoroughly charted. We merely sketch the background insofar as is necessary to set this appeal and the underlying litigation into perspective. We shall call </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=90-1957.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: Page 2. William Shakespeare tells us in a famous passage from Romeo and Juliet that labels are not important. Rather that content is what counts.6 In more recent times. The BETTY F is thus a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1513.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief. Were on brief. The order appealed from does not fit within the parameters of that doctrine: the EAB proceedings are ongoing. THE STATUTORY FRAMEWORK</STRONG></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Nov2002/013077.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Congregation Kol Ami (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1996/96a1425p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was sued by the United States under CERCLA for the costs of cleaning up the site. On the ground that Dowel was a prior owner </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1997/97a1728p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> In part: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1997/97a1728p.htm">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> In part: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb1995/95a0975p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will reverse. We will vacate the district court's judgment and remand so that the district court may determine whether the regulations can be upheld despite their discriminatory effect.[fn1] I. The facts of this case are generally not in dispute.[fn2] The necessary factual background concerns New Jersey's waste management system and Atlantic Coast's activities. Or was in the process of closing. Was at the forefront of both the problem and the solution. A number of additional counties were forced by the continuing capacity shortages to make disposal arrangements with out of state facilities. New Jersey waste was banned. New Jersey's existing statutory and regulatory waste management system is the result of attempts to respond to this crisis.[fn3] The two major statutory provisions of New Jersey's solid waste management system are the Solid Waste Management Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb1995/94a0975p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will reverse. We will vacate the district court's judgment and remand so that the district court may determine whether the regulations can be upheld despite their discriminatory effect.[fn1] I. The facts of this case are generally not in dispute.[fn2] The necessary factual background concerns New Jersey's waste management system and Atlantic Coast's activities. Or was in the process of closing. Was at the forefront of both the problem and the solution. A number of additional counties were forced by the continuing capacity shortages to make disposal arrangements with out of state facilities. New Jersey waste was banned. New Jersey's existing statutory and regulatory waste management system is the result of attempts to respond to this crisis.[fn3] The two major statutory provisions of New Jersey's solid waste management system are the Solid Waste Management Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1994/94a0790p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A district court may review a property owner's bona fide allegations that continuance of the project will cause irreparable harm to public health or the environment and. We will reverse its order denying injunctive relief. After trichloroethylene (TCE) contamination was discovered in the groundwater at two sites on Gamma Tech property. They were placed on the National Priorities List. After the decision was announced. The public and potentially responsible parties were given the opportunity to comment on the plan. At least some of the proposed wells have already been installed on the property. The final design was expected to be completed in the fall of 1993 and the remedial process begun in the spring of 1994. It is anticipated that the cleanup will be completed in five to seven years. Gamma Tech asserted that the EPA's selected remedy will exacerbate the existing environmental damage and cause further irreparable harm to the environment. The system devised by the EPA will cause contaminated water from the shallow strata of the aquifer to be drawn down into the deep zone where contamination has not been established conclusively. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200706/04-1385a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Walke was on brief. Kacenjar was on brief. Attorney General at the time the brief was filed. Attorney General at the time the brief was filed. Were on brief for amici curiae the State of New Jersey et al. in support of the Environmental Petitioners. Klineberg and Mary Ann McGrail were on brief for amici curiae State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators and the Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials in support of the Environmental Petitioners. Was on brief. Wallisch were on brief. Shipley were on brief. Carpenter were on brief for amicus curiae Rubber Manufacturers Association in support of the respondents. Segal was on brief for amicus curiae American Boiler Manufacturers Association in support of the respondents. Environmental Petitioners) challenge the CISWI Definitions Rule on the ground that its narrow definition of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200610/04-1291a.pdf">O:\2005-2006 TERM\12-01-05 SITTING\04-1291 ENV. DEF. V. EPA\OPINION\EDF FINAL.WPD<BR></A><BR> With her on the brief were John C. Transportation Solutions Defense and Education Fund ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200402/03-5046a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200401/02-1253a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200304/01-1228a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200302/01-1204a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200205/01-1052a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Andrew J. With him on the brief were Maurice H. With him on the briefs were Julie C. French were on the briefs for Engine Manufacturer petitioners. With them on the briefs were Kenneth C. Walke were on the brief for intervenors American Lung Association. McBride were on the brief for intervenor American Petroleum Institute. Voge were on the brief for intervenors State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Ad ministrators. Shapiro were on the brief for intervenors International Truck and Engine Corporation. PER CURIAM:1 We have here a set of challenges to an EPA rule affecting diesel fuel and engines. All of which are 1 Parts I and II of the opinion are by Senior Judge Williams. Part III is by Judge Sentelle. Parts IV and V are by Judge Tatel. harmful to the environment and human health (as no party disputes). The new standards are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200008/98-1526b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were James R. With him on the briefs were Christopher G. With him on the brief were Lois J. Steinzor were on the brief for intervenors. The regulations were issued pursuant to section 183(e) of the Clean Air Act. Petitioners are Dunn Edwards Corporation. Intervening on EPA's side are other industry groups including the National Paint & Coat ings Association. We conclude that EPA's regulations are lawful and deny the petitions for review. One of the pollutants so identified and regulated by the agency is ground level ozone. Man made ozone can have a wide array of negative effects on human health. Is aimed at mitigating the problem of ground level ozone. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee explained the impact of ground level ozone on human health: Ozone is fatal at high concentrations. Potentially more troubling and less well understood are the effects of long term chronic exposure to summertime ozone concentrations found in many cities. Ozone is formed when nitrogen oxides (NOx) react with volatile organic com pounds (VOCs) in the presence of sunlight. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200006/98-1526a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were James R. With him on the briefs were Christopher G. With him on the brief were Lois J. Steinzor were on the brief for intervenors. The regulations were issued pursuant to section 183(e) of the Clean Air Act. Petitioners are Dunn Edwards Corporation. Intervening on EPA's side are other industry groups including the National Paint & Coat ings Association. We conclude that EPA's regulations are lawful and deny the petitions for review. One of the pollutants so identified and regulated by the agency is ground level ozone. Man made ozone can have a wide array of negative effects on human health. Is aimed at mitigating the problem of ground level ozone. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee explained the impact of ground level ozone on human health: Ozone is fatal at high concentrations. Potentially more troubling and less well understood are the effects of long term chronic exposure to summertime ozone concentrations found in many cities. Ozone is formed when nitrogen oxides (NOx) react with volatile organic com pounds (VOCs) in the presence of sunlight. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199801/96-1251a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Christine L. With her on the brief were Lois J. Bieke were on the brief for intervenor Appalachian Power Company. Are requisite to protect the public health. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982407.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> EPA argues that the district court incorrectly held that the Report was reviewable final agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). That error was nonetheless harmless and not grounds for vacating EPA's Report. Because the Report is not reviewable agency action under the APA. We vacate the judgment of the district court and remand for dismissal.3 Such smoke is also known as secondhand. The Radon Act was based on Congress's finding that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021501.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Are several organizations that share the common goal of maintenance of water quality in North Carolina's streams and rivers. The plaintiffs' participation in the consent decree was contingent on their success on two of the defendants' motions that were pending at that time. The court's decision on the merits of the standing issue was correct in light of all of the evidence before it. Is largely concerned with procedural matters. Five of the defendants' sow farms are involved in this case. Into which hog waste is flushed from the barns that house the animals. The waste and rainfall that accumulates in the lagoons is pumped through a piping system and sprayed onto the fields as fertilizer. As the Farms were regulated by DENR. It is undisputed that on two occasions prior to the commencement of suit. There were unauthorized discharges of animal waste into waters of the United States from Mag 4 as a result of runoff from spraying the fields. DENR discovered that wastewater from the Farms' fields was running into a tributary of Six Runs Creek.1 In July 1997. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001684.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. OPINION PER CURIAM: This case requires us to decide whether United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001283.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Claiming that a county operated waste treatment plant was discharging warm water into a local stream. The court decided that the Commissioners were liable under the Clean Water Act for the discharge of pollutants not expressly authorized by the permit. We therefore view the NPDES permit as shielding its holder from liability under the Clean Water Act as long as (1) the permit holder complies with the express terms of the permit and with the Clean Water Act's disclosure requirements and (2) the permit holder does not make a discharge of pollutants that was not within the reasonable contemplation of the permitting authority at the time the permit was granted. (2) their discharges of heat were within the reasonable contemplation of the permitting authority at the time the permit was issued. I. Piney Run is a small stream with its headwaters near the border of Carroll and Baltimore counties in Maryland. Which means that it is protected as a source of public drinking water and as a body capable of supporting a selfsustaining trout population. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-3299.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> One such product is Provent a Mite. Learned that certain reptile dealers and reptile product suppliers were marketing a pesticide labeled Black Knight for use in eradicating reptile parasites. Dealers and suppliers were marketing Black Knight for this use despite the fact that Black Knight was not registered or approved for the treatment of pests affecting reptiles. Is registered under the Federal Insecticide. Black Knight is an aerosol product containing hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) 22 and 142 (monochlorodifluoromethane and monochlorodifluoroethane. Are banned by the CAA. Although the distribution or sale of products containing banned substances is permitted for an additional period if a reformulation exemption is first obtained. That Airosol was in violation of 7671i(d)(1)(A) of the CAA. Relied heavily on its conclusion that Pro Products' suit was brought to remove a competitor from the market and not out of a concern for the (1) Airosol does not contest the district court's conclusion that it violated the Act. <hr> environment. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-8006.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> <hr> the Wind River is joined by the Little Wind River and the Popo Agie River. The river is called the Big Horn River. Although the river is not a property boundary. The Wind River is a braided stream which flows through multiple channels within a broad flood plain. The river's main flow was contained in a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-6146.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Was a central location for aircraft maintenance and repair. The Air Force's practice beginning in the 1940s until the 1980s as was the practice of most industrial concerns was (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. No special precautions were taken to prevent the waste from migrating to local neighborhoods.(1) Plaintiff appellants are individual residents and landowners in Tinker View Acres located near the Base. Plaintiffs= complaint was filed in federal court under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Is based on Oklahoma negligence and property law. The primary waste complained of is TCE. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-30123.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. Primarily at issue is whether. The remaining tanks were to be used by Texaco. The purchasers and their None of the grantees subdivided and developed the property. purchasers to whom Knight sold the property are plaintiffs in this action. Texaco is a Delaware Corporation. Diversity jurisdiction because Knight was fraudulently joined. Plaintiffs contend: Knight was not fraudulently joined. Therefore this action should have been remanded to state court and Knight should not have been dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Such dismissal was improper for their property claims against Texaco. Summary judgment was improper for their remaining claims against it. Courts determine whether there exists a reasonable basis for recovery against the 4 party whose joinder is challenged. Whether there is a reasonable basis for recovery is determined only in reference to the complaint at the time of removal. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar97/96-6645.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. OLIN CORP.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Olin contended that CERCLA was not intended to impose liability for conduct predating the statute's enactment. 1520 21 (11th Cir.1995) (upholding Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act because legislative findings were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200512077.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This case involves the deliberate pollution of international waters and whether this defendant was properly charged and tried in this district court. Rick Dean Stickle was the Chairman and Owner of Sabine Transportation Company. Stickle was tried by a jury which adjudicated him guilty on both counts. He contends that the indictment should have been dismissed because the Juneau was not a freight vessel as defined in the charged statutes. He further asserts that the government was required to prove venue beyond a reasonable doubt and that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to establish venue in the Southern District of Florida. Sabine is one of several 2 corporations headquartered in Cedar Rapids. Rick Dean Stickle was the Owner and Chairman of Stickle Enterprises. Stickle was an intensely hands on manager who regularly involved himself in the business' daily operations and decision making. Stickle and the operation managers were in constant communication with their vessels either by fax. The Juneau was immediately designated to carry a cargo of wheat for CARE and World Food Programs from Portland. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb96/94-8452.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTE5ODMtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-1983-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Tribune is in violation of the FCC's newspaper/broadcast cross ownership rule. After the last temporary waiver had expired and while Tribune's application for the permanent waiver was pending. Although we are sympathetic to Ellis's frustration in the face of agency inaction. That the same entity may own or control two television stations in the same market so long as: (i) at the time the application is filed. At least one of the stations is not ranked among the top four stations in audience rankings in the DMA. (Transferor) & Tribune Television Co. 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 November 16 application sought a waiver of the television duopoly rule.2 While Tribune's application was pending. Although WTXX is not ranked among the top four stations in the Hartford New Haven DMA. Eight independently owned and operated television stations would not have remained in this DMA after Tribune's proposed acquisition. Operates or controls a daily newspaper and the grant of such license will result in: . . . (3) The Grade A contour of a TV station. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTQwODQ2X29wbi5wZGY=/03-40846_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is substituted as Respondent in this case. 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 The New York Public Interest Research Group. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 7661d(b)(2) and 7607(b)(1). The public have easy access to a source's obligations under the Act. The EPA's Regulations explain what it intended: [R]egulations are often written to cover broad source categories. EPA often has no easy way to establish whether a source is in compliance with regulations under the Act. The title V permit program will enable the source. The public to understand better the requirements to which the source is subject. Whether the source is meeting those requirements. The program will also greatly strengthen EPA's ability to implement the Act and enhance air quality planning and control. Which is somewhat complicated. The denial of a petition is then subject to judicial review. The Act also contains a grandmothering clause: Polluting sources in existence in 1977 were not required initially to comply with emission limitations. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/06/01-6225.htm">01-6225 -- GRAIN DEALERS MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. V. FARMER ALLIANCE MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. - - 06/13/2002<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug2002/01-11932.opn.html">FISHERMEN AGAINST THE DESTRUCTION OF THE ENV'T, INC. V. CLOSTER FARMS, INC. (8/7/2002, NO. 01-11932)<BR></A><BR> We find that no permit is required. </SPAN></P> <P ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA0LTI0MDlfc28ucGRm/04-2409_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/07/053147P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> At issue is the cost the United States has incurred in its environmental cleanup efforts at the Vertac Chemical Plant site in Jacksonville. This opinion will address the relevant portions of each. We will use Uniroyal throughout this opinion. United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. 32 1 The Jacksonville site was originally developed by the federal government in the 1930s as a munitions factory. The site was sold to Reasor Hill Corporation (Reasor Hill). 4 D) creates a toxic byproduct that is now viewed as hazardous to humans. Other wastes were stored in drums stacked in a field on the site. 5 T that was used in Vietnam to clear jungle undergrowth. Hercules's practice was to place any contaminated soil into the drum. We will refer to both corporations as Vertac. 5 3 produced waste that was free of dioxins. The samples were later sent to Wright State University and Monsanto Company for testing. There were nearly 29. Some drums were labeled T waste. Some were marked T and D. Some were not marked at all. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr95/94-2294.man.html">BOCA CIEGA HOTEL V. BOUCHARD TRANSPORTATION<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Boca Ciega Hotel v. Appellees took the position that resort to this claims presentation process is a mandatory condition precedent to any OPA lawsuit. DISCUSSION<p> <p> The only issue before us is whether the district court correctly found that compliance with OPA's claims presentation requirement is a mandatory condition precedent to the existence of jurisdiction over private actions brought under the Act.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/06/043913P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case was tried to a jury. At issue in this appeal is Tamko's attempt to hold Smith's parent. Smith was founded in 1925. By 1997 it was running short of its budget and by 1998 it had begun to lose money. Development Specialties and others brought suit against Haden seeking to have the transfer of the Eisenmann judgment to Haden set aside on the grounds that it was fraudulent. Piercing the corporate veil under an alter ego theory is best thought of as a remedy to enforce a substantive right. We will use the parties' proffered terminology in referring to Tamko's alter ego </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1319.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Will & Emery LLP. Will & Emery LLP. That the insured cheese was covered under the express terms of the FM policy. Granting partial summary judgment because the cheese was clearly contaminated. The jury found that Leprino's expectation of coverage was not reasonable. Specializes in manufacturing mozzarella cheese and is the largest manufacturer of mozzarella cheese in the United States. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/054353p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> New Directions and the individual plaintiffs' appeal is before us. Properly prescribed methadone is not intoxicating or sedating. The medication is taken orally and it suppresses narcotic withdrawal for 24 to 36 hours. Patients are able to perceive pain and have emotional reactions. Craving is a major reason for relapse. It has been found that normal street doses of heroin are ineffective at producing euphoria. Methadone is medically safe even when used continuously for 10 years or more. The Office of National Drug Control Policy (of the Executive Office of the President) provides further information on methadone treatment: Background Information Methadone is a rigorously well tested medication that is safe and efficacious for the treatment of narcotic withdrawal and dependence. Is freed from the uncontrolled. Withdrawal from methadone is much slower than that from heroin. It is possible to maintain an addict on methadone without harsh side effects. The operating practices of clinics and hospitals are bound by Federal regulations that restrict the use and availability of methadone. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/96opinions/96-7022a.html">TRI CTY INDUST INC V. DC<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/nov96/95-9541.wpd.html">SIERRA CLUB V. EPA<BR></A><BR> Petitioners contend the Environmental Protection Agency's decision is unreasonable and contrary to the plain meaning of the Clean Air Act. Areas failing to meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for ozone are designated as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/31AF38E34B5DFBE788256B5F000411A7/$file/0070890.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Intervenors. *Christie Todd Whitman is substituted for her predecessor. John Iani is substituted for his predecessor. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions%5Cpub%5C03/03-30023-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Facts and Proceedings Below This is a qui tam action under the False Claims Act (FCA). The case is now before this court on the defendant We reverse and remand this case for Georgia Gulf's interlocutory appeal from the district court's order denying Georgia Gulf's motion to dismiss the complaint under FED. One of the primary products manufactured by Georgia Gulf at its chemical facility in Plaquemine is polyvinyl chloride (PVC). Which is a known carcinogen. The PVC is produced in eighteen reactors which must be routinely opened in order to conduct physical inspections. When the reactors are opened. Vinyl This is known as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1066.html">UNION OIL CO OF CALIFORNIA V. ATLANTIC RICHFIELD CO.<BR></A><BR> 393 ( 393 patent) is invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 112 (1994). As is often the case during the course of prosecution. An olefin content less than 4 volume percent] wherein the maximum 10% distillation point is 158º F (70º C.).</P> <P ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/09/01-4216.htm">01-4216 -- UTAHNS FOR BETTER V. U.S. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION -- 09/16/2002<BR></A><BR> The district court's jurisdiction was based upon the Administrative Procedures Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Oct2004/Oct13/03-30023-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Facts and Proceedings Below This is a qui tam action under the False Claims Act (FCA). The case is now before this court on the defendant We reverse and remand this case for Georgia Gulf's interlocutory appeal from the district court's order denying Georgia Gulf's motion to dismiss the complaint under FED. One of the primary products manufactured by Georgia Gulf at its chemical facility in Plaquemine is polyvinyl chloride (PVC). Which is a known carcinogen. The PVC is produced in eighteen reactors which must be routinely opened in order to conduct physical inspections. When the reactors are opened. Vinyl This is known as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0366p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (3) the companies were jointly and severally liable for response costs incurred by the Ellises under the Comprehensive Environmental Response. Concluding that the consent decrees and state administrative proceedings precluded the PSD claims and that the CERCLA claim was meritless. The private plaintiffs have not shown that they were entitled to injunctive relief and have not shown that they complied with the notice requirements of the Clean Air Act. Gallatin and Harsco are separate legal entities. They have experienced more respiratory problems. The federal Clean Air Act is a model of cooperative federalism. 335 (6th Cir. 1989) (EPA approved state implementation plans are enforceable in federal court). The Clean Air Act allows citizens to file actions to enforce its provisions when two requirements have been met. Citizens cannot commence their own suits unless they have given 60 days' notice to the Administrator of the EPA. Citizens cannot commence independent suits if the EPA or the State has already commenced an enforcement action and is diligently prosecuting the violation. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0276p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case was later stayed pending efforts by a third party to resolve rate disputes. That removal was necessary to protect the integrity of the orders in that action. City of Detroit ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-2839.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A moderate jurisdiction that missed this deadline was to be reclassified automatically as 2 Nos. 03 2839 & 03 3329 a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D0B2D3557486B9D488256E31005D99FA/$file/0236000.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. It was across the street from a gravel pit. The landfill operation was approved initially and then overseen by District 7 Health Department according to an Operational Plan as required by Idaho regulations. Responsibility for regulatory oversight of solid waste facilities is split between the State Department of Environmental Quality ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4F3CD75FB532C06188256E5A00707C56/$file/0015700.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Vernal pools are pools that form during the rainy season. Are often dry in the summer. Swales are sloped wetlands that allow for the movement of aquatic plant and animal life. Intermittent drainages are streams that transport water during and after rains. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8D0A814CD52D5A6588256AA8008124F1/$file/0015700.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Vernal pools are pools that form during the rainy season. Are often dry in the summer. Swales are sloped wetlands that allow for the movement of aquatic plant and animal life. Intermittent drainages are streams that transport water during and after rains. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-1647a.html">NAT RESRC DEF CNCL V. EPA<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-1502a.html">AMER PETRO INST V. EPA<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/11/97-2327.htm">97-2327 -- AMIGOS BRAVOS V. MOLYCORP INC. -- 11/13/1998<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> <center>I.</center> <p> Defendant Molycorp Inc. operates a molybdenum mine in New Mexico that discharges pollutants into the Red River. The discharge of pollutants from a point source<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200312/02-1326a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Sep2004/Sep27/03-30023-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Facts and Proceedings Below This is a qui tam action under the False Claims Act (FCA). The case is now before this court on the defendant Georgia Gulf's interlocutory appeal from the district court's order denying Georgia Gulf's motion to dismiss the complaint under FED. One of the primary products manufactured by Georgia Gulf at its chemical facility in Plaquemine is polyvinyl chloride (PVC). Which is a known carcinogen. The PVC is produced in eighteen reactors which must be routinely opened in order to conduct physical inspections. When the reactors are opened. Vinyl This is known as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200404/02-1089a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200406/02-1282a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9CED8FAD1701682088256DAB00803567/$file/0135928.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Murphy were on the briefs. Is hereby ordered amended as follows: Slip Op. at 11135: First full paragraph. Judges O'Scannlain and Fisher have voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc. The petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. Circuit Judge: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/08/97-9564.htm">97-9564 -- OSAGE TRIBAL COUNCIL V. U.S. DEPT. OF LABOR -- 08/04/1999<BR></A><BR> The Board's order rejected the Council's assertion that it was entitled to tribal immunity. White was entitled. We hold that the Board's denial of sovereign immunity is reviewable under the collateral order doctrine. We do not address the intervenor's arguments as the order is not yet final and thus not reviewable as to his claims. <p align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/12/97-1328.htm">97-1328 -- U.S. V. STATE OF COLORADO -- 12/21/1999<BR></A><BR> 10<sup> 5</sup> cancer risk level was arbitrary and capricious. (2) the district court erred when it ruled that the EPA's failure to amend the Record of Decision for Operable Unit I when it encountered the unexpected rock content in the sludge was arbitrary and capricious. (3) even if the actions regarding the Record of Decision for Operable Unit I were arbitrary and capricious. The district court erred in not requiring BN to prove that the cost would not have been incurred in any event. <p> BN cross appeals. We conclude that the EPA's remediation decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record and. Is not arbitrary and capricious. Performance or cost of the remedial plan was involved. The EPA was not required to amend the remediation plan in order to use the settling tank or to amend the plan. We agree with the district court that the EPA actions were arbitrary and capricious for failing to amend the plan. <p> Third. We hold that the district court erred in refusing to require BN to demonstrate that the EPA's errors resulted in expenditures in excess of those that would have occurred in the absence of the errors. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200511/04-1211a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on the briefs for petitioners. Were on the brief for respondent. EPA *Senior Circuit Judge Edwards was in regular active service at the time of oral argument. 3 promulgates final designations. The Administrator shall notify the State and provide such State with an opportunity to demonstrate why any proposed modification is inappropriate. 42 U.S.C. § 7407(d)(1)(B)(ii). The CAA is silent. Ocean County is in the New York Northern New Jersey Long Island 1hour nonattainment area. Cecil County is in the Philadelphia Wilmington Atlantic City nonattainment area. Delaware reiterates its view that EPA should have established a much larger nonattainment area encompassing the entire northeast corridor. We will not substitute our judgment for the agency's. Cir. 1998) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9FBE24680B0E858C88256E390060D51D/$file/0155676.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This is a CERCLA contribution case.1 The appellants were found to have arranged. Was once a ranch owned by the Wardlows. Had been going farther and farther afield from their Long Beach locations for disposal sites because the stink of acid tar was notoriously offensive to The Comprehensive Environmental Response. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200612/05-1353a.pdf">JUDICIAL WATCH V. SENATE, NO. 04-5422<BR></A><BR> With him on the briefs were Paul M. With her on the briefs were Jonathan F. With them on the brief were John C. Schulze were on the brief for industry intervenors Utility Air Regulatory Group and Center for Energy and Economic Development in support of respondent in Case No. 05 1354. Is less than 30 kilometers. The Haze Rule requires that under specified circumstances states impose best available retrofit technology ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200702/01-1046a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With them on the briefs were Edward M. With him on the brief was Nathaniel I. Rabinowitz were on the brief for intervenor United Steel. Petitioners contend that MSHA did not have sufficient evidence that DPM presents a risk to miners' health. Petitioners also assert that MSHA unlawfully granted medical evaluation and transfer rights to workers who are required to wear respirators. That MSHA's final implementation timetable was not a logical outgrowth of the proposed rules. Diesel exhaust is comprised of both gasses and particulate matter. The agency determined that miners were exposed to very high levels of DPM. MSHA concluded that it was necessary to regulate DPM exposure to protect miners from these risks. The agency determined that there was no reliable way to measure DPM directly for compliance purposes. Total carbon was deemed to be a reliable surrogate because there was evidence in the record that TC makes up approximately 80 85% of DPM. That this is a consistent relationship. Those rules were not challenged. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may2000/99-11372.man.html">MONARCH TILE, INC. V. CITY OF FLORENCE (5/25/2000, NO. 99-11372)<BR></A><BR> Is a municipal corporation organized under the laws of Alabama. 000.</P> <P> From 1953 to 1973 Stylon discharged substances that are hazardous within the meaning of § 101(14) of CERCLA. Although Appellant apparently was not responsible for most of the pollution. Was directed to clean up the facility under CERCLA. Holding that Appellee was exempted from liability under 42 U.S.C. § 9601(20)(A). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 1509 (11th Cir.1993).</P> <P><CENTER>II.</CENTER> </P> <P> CERCLA is a broad. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/964498.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Line 11 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/080355972CE104ED88256D8000519A52/$file/0135928.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Murphy were on the briefs. Circuit Judge: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/964713.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. One of the sites was the Pea Ridge Public Service District. Fitzpatrick was arrested after electrical devices stolen from an Ohio company were discovered in his car. The stolen property offense was placed in a separate group and had an adjusted offense level of 12. That guideline section sets out a procedure for calculating the combined offense level for multiple counts when there is more than one 2 group of counts. Was considered the most serious offense because it had the highest offense level. The stolen property offense was the more serious offense. The most serious offense is the offense with the highest offense level. Fitzpatrick was in criminal history category IV. His guideline range was 33 41 months. Fitzpatrick then asserted that his sentence for both offenses would have been less severe had the offenses been prosecuted separately. He complained that he was effectively being penalized for consolidating the offenses in the interest of judicial economy. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr2000/981937.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Individual appellants are Robert D. We will affirm. The factual background of this protracted dispute is detailed in the district court's comprehensive opinion. We will only briefly summarize the factual and procedural history of this dispute insofar as it is helpful to our discussion. The UDAG Program was created by a 1977 amendment to Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-5083.html">MARITRANS INC., V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiffs appellants.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief was <u>Laurie Frost Wilson</u>. <st1:State>Virginia</st1:State></st1:place>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Of counsel on the brief was <u>Arthur J. Argued for defendant appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief were <u>Douglas N. Line height:200%'>Maritrans Inc. is a marine petroleum transport company.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Maritrans Inc. Mso bidi language:AR SA'>[1]</span></span><![endif]></span></span></a><span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Maritrans asserted that the vessels were taken by the double hull requirement imposed by section 4115 of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (". As far as twenty nine of the single hull tank vessels were concerned. Maritrans' takings claim was not ripe for adjudication.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span><u>Maritrans Inc. v. </u><st1:country region><st1:place><u>United States</u></st1:place></st1:country region>. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec2000/986321.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because we conclude that the stationary gas turbines at issue in this case are not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/June1995/95a1086p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> As such terms are defined and determined under applicable State law. Section 1821(k) was passed by Congress in response to the enactment by various states. Concluding that the enactment of § 1821(k) supplanted any available federal common law actions for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty.[fn1] Courts of appeals that have considered these issues have concluded that § 1821(k) does not preempt state law. We will affirm the district court's order in the United Savings action and reverse the court's order in the City Federal action. (7) failing to require and verify that necessary permits and approvals were obtained before funding the loans. At issue in these appeals is whether Congress. As we have stated. The question of the interpretation of § 1821(k) is one of first impression in this circuit. Our review of the construction of federal statutes is plenary. A. The Plain Meaning of the Statute </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar1995/95a1007p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Review was granted. We will affirm the decision of the district court in part. We will reverse it in part. We will remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Provided that the program meets the requirements established under the Act and is approved by the EPA. 33 U.S.C. § 1342(b). Hercules was required to make its DMRs available to the public. The court may order injunctive relief and/or impose civil penalties which are payable to the United States. It is the discharge violations. Which are most easily ascertainable from the information available to the public. Among these were more than thirty new violations which had not been included in the notice letter. Reporting and recordkeeping violations.[fn4] The majority of monitoring violations were instances when Hercules did not analyze samples before the time limit specified in the permit for holding samples had expired. Reporting violations consisted of instances when Hercules erroneously reported the kind of sample that was taken or when Hercules failed to report a discharge violation. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb96/94-8452.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1995/95a1161p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This appeal by defendant/third party plaintiff Commer cial Union Insurance Company ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Dec2001/012224.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lawrence to operate a facility that would have an adverse disparate racial impact upon them in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. We hold that an administrative regulation cannot create an interest enforceable under section 1983 unless the interest already is implicit in the statute authorizing the regulation. The plaintiffs do not have a right enforceable through a 1983 action under the EPA's disparate impact discrimination regulations. We will reverse. We point out that the residents of Waterfront South are predominately minorities and the neighborhood is disadvantaged environmentally.1 Waterfront South contains two Superfund sites. Lawrence's business is the processing of ground granulated blast furnace slag ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1234.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Bockius LLP</U> were on the brief. Snyder LLP</U> were on the brief. Inc.</U> were on the brief.</FONT> <P><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-2340.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for respondent. </FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1830.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Moring LLP</SPAN> were on brief for appellants.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-2635.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Johnston</SPAN> and <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2002/01-11932.opn.html">FISHERMEN AGAINST THE DESTRUCTION OF THE ENV'T, INC. V. CLOSTER FARMS, INC. (8/7/2002, NO. 01-11932)<BR></A><BR> We find that no permit is required. </SPAN></P> <P ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1949.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is corrected as follows: On page 16. P.C. was on brief. Were on brief. Because there is no other cognizable basis for federal jurisdiction. Lurie and O'Connor are named as defendants in the instant suit. EPA has not yet sued to compel payment of these expenses or otherwise to enforce its claimed rights. 2The officer removal statute provides in pertinent part: A civil action or criminal prosecution commenced in a State court against any of the following persons may be removed by them to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place wherein it is pending: 4 On February 20. Was really a suit against EPA and that. We requested supplemental briefing on whether this action was properly removed to federal court. Both sides responded that removal was valid under 28 U.S.C. 1442(a)(1) because of Belaga's status as a federal officer. Because a federal court is under an unflagging duty to ensure that it has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the cases it proposes to adjudicate. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/99opinions/99-1325c.html">NATIONAL LIME ASSOCIATION V. EPA<BR></A><BR> </P> <P>it is</P> <BR WP= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/4f3cd75fb532c06188256e5a00707c56/$FILE/0015700.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Vernal pools are pools that form during the rainy season. Are often dry in the summer. Swales are sloped wetlands that allow for the movement of aquatic plant and animal life. Intermittent drainages are streams that transport water during and after rains. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr95/94-2294.man.html">BOCA CIEGA HOTEL V. BOUCHARD TRANSPORTATION<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Boca Ciega Hotel v. Appellees took the position that resort to this claims presentation process is a mandatory condition precedent to any OPA lawsuit. DISCUSSION<p> <p> The only issue before us is whether the district court correctly found that compliance with OPA's claims presentation requirement is a mandatory condition precedent to the existence of jurisdiction over private actions brought under the Act.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/05/981305U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The judgment is affirmed. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/8d0a814cd52d5a6588256aa8008124f1/$FILE/0015700.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Vernal pools are pools that form during the rainy season. Are often dry in the summer. Swales are sloped wetlands that allow for the movement of aquatic plant and animal life. Intermittent drainages are streams that transport water during and after rains. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1780.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for respondent. We conclude that the first claim is time barred and reject the second claim on the merits. BACKGROUND BACKGROUND The CAA was enacted </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may2000/99-11372.man.html">MONARCH TILE, INC. V. CITY OF FLORENCE (5/25/2000, NO. 99-11372)<BR></A><BR> Is a municipal corporation organized under the laws of Alabama. 000.</P> <P> From 1953 to 1973 Stylon discharged substances that are hazardous within the meaning of § 101(14) of CERCLA. Although Appellant apparently was not responsible for most of the pollution. Was directed to clean up the facility under CERCLA. Holding that Appellee was exempted from liability under 42 U.S.C. § 9601(20)(A). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 1509 (11th Cir.1993).</P> <P><CENTER>II.</CENTER> </P> <P> CERCLA is a broad. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-8060.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> €the€City€would€be€entitled€to€qualified€immunity€onÐ </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199910/97-1727a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was David G. With her on the briefs was Henry V. With him on the briefs were Lois J. Zoll and Alexandra Dunn were on the brief of Industry Intervenors in support of respondent. We also hold that the issue raised by the industry groups is unripe for review. Most air pollution sources' emissions were tested at start up or another single point in time. There was no statutory mechanism outside of EPA. Who the Administrator believes may have information neces sary for the purposes set forth in this subsection. Or who is subject to any requirement of this chapter ... on a one time. Production variables or other indirect data when direct monitoring of emissions is impractical.... 42 U.S.C. s 7414(a)(1)(D) (E) (emphasis added). This provi sion gives EPA the authority to require a source to keep relevant emissions data when direct sampling is impractical and to require a source to conduct emission sampling. Stating that EPA shall in the case of any person which is the owner or operator of a major stationary source. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-9570.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is a whistleblower action brought by Adrienne Anderson (Anderson) against Metro Wastewater Reclamation District (Metro) pursuant to various environmental statutes which prohibit discrimination against </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199911372.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is a municipal corporation organized under the laws of Alabama. From 1953 to 1973 Stylon discharged substances that are hazardous within the meaning of § 101(14) of CERCLA. Although Appellant apparently was not responsible for most of the pollution. Was directed to clean up the facility under CERCLA. Holding that Appellee was exempted from liability under 42 U.S.C. § 9601(20)(A). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199911372.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is a municipal corporation organized under the laws of Alabama. From 1953 to 1973 Stylon discharged substances that are hazardous within the meaning of § 101(14) of CERCLA. Although Appellant apparently was not responsible for most of the pollution. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200316440.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Petitions the court to review the United States Environmental Protection Agency's ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/75D1F282099FCD1088256D96006F6DA2/$file/0116694.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The County and the City argued that the State Engineer's findings were not supported by substantial evidence and that the State Engineer should COUNTY OF CHURCHILL v. RICCI 12931 have ordered a study of the cumulative and potentially negative effects that future water rights transfers contemplated by USFWS might have on existing water rights and the public interest. The County argued that the State Engineer should have stayed ruling on the merits of the applications until the completion of related federal court litigation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The extensive and ongoing litigation over these rights clearly indicates that many individual competing concerns have yet to be satisfied. We hold that the State Engineer has broad discretion under Nevada law to determine whether a change in place of use of existing water rights will have a detrimental impact on the public interest or whether a hydrological or other study is necessary before approving such a transfer. 12932 COUNTY OF CHURCHILL v. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/EA5AD717FB38DA5888256C3600527E73/$file/0135261.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are called upon to decide two central issues.1 First. Which have little merit and are briefly addressed later. 1 COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION v. HENRY BOSMA DAIRY 14005 the discharges were of a type which would not be allowed even with a NPDES permit. It is unlawful to discharge any pollutant into the United State's waters except those discharges made in compliance with the CWA. The dairies are adjacent to one another and consist of four large parcels of property.2 The dairies stable or confine approximately 2500 and 3000 dairy cattle. The dairies are supposed to be set up so that waste produced by the dairies is contained and stored in a lagoon. The dairies' total waste capacity is 3 months at 4. One hundred fifty acres are used for wastewater field application. CAFOs are animal feeding operations where animals are stabled or confined for a total of 45 days or more in any 12 month period in an area where neither crops. Vegetation or crop residue is sustained. 40 C.F.R. § 122.23(a)(3). Bosma is subject to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ED8FA1537F4D6C17882572BF00584125/$file/0535468.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have not had the occasion to determine whether Erie principles apply when federal courts exercise jurisdiction over state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c). The basis of a federal court's jurisdiction over a state law claim is irrelevant for Erie purposes. It is the duty of federal courts to ascertain and apply that law. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F2123EC61ABB9D688825735300509F5D/$file/0535408.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This appeal challenges an injunction limiting but not entirely prohibiting coal bed methane development while the Bureau of Land Management expands an environmental impact statement.1 Facts The Powder River Basin in Montana and Wyoming is the largest coal deposit in the United States and among the largest in the world. Farmers and ranchers generally have surface rights to the land involved in this case. The land is thought to cover vast amount of methane. This coal bed methane is a natural gas generated by coal deposits and trapped in coal seams by groundwater. Coal bed methane is extracted by pumping the groundwater out of the land and into rivers. As the water is removed. The hydraulic pressure on the gas is relieved. So the gas percolates and is piped to the surface. This opinion is written in ordinary English. The pollution of the rivers and streams into which the groundwater is pumped. So that ranchers' and farmers' (and expanding suburban developers') wells run dry unless they are drilled deeper. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F3398DF0F5B7CAC288256D5E00785FB2/$file/0136172.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Save Our Valley argues that the project will have the effect of discriminating against Rainier Valley residents based on race in violation of a Department of Transportation regulation. The primary question before us is whether that Department of Transportation regulation creates an individual federal right that can be enforced under the Civil Rights Act. I The Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F8F25FC93000BD9C88256C83006210DC/$file/0116637.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The purpose of the lease suspensions was to extend the lives of the leases and to allow the lessees to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1088.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Richard D. DyStar and Bann Quimica Ltda. are large chemical manufacturers that. Patrick Co. purchased prereduced BASF was the assignee of the '992 patent. This court concludes that the jury's verdict was reasonable and was supported by evidence in the record. This court will not substitute its findings for those of the jury as the jury's decision was clearly supported by the trial record and was reasonable. Because indigo pigment is insoluble in water. Leuco indigo is unstable. If it is not being used immediately for dyeing. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-5007.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief was Edward D. Of counsel was David C. With him on the brief were Peter D. After the contract work was completed. TEG alleged that it was entitled to additional compensation under the contract based upon its removal of excessive quantities of asbestos. The Geneva Towers were two high rise apartment buildings in San Francisco. HUD solicited bids on a contract for asbestos abatement and TEG was awarded the contract on May 8. The deadline for finishing the abatement was changed to February 15. This delay was purportedly caused at least in part by disagreements between TEG and HUD over contract requirements. The parties disagreed as to (i) whether the contract required TEG to abate asbestos in the pores and cracks of the Geneva Towers' surfaces and (ii) whether TEG was required to comply with the contract specifications rather than TEG's work plan. Friable materials are capable. The original asbestos abatement standard was set forth at Section 2080. Shall be cleaned to a degree that no traces of debris or residue are visible. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/299F23F9E9B73F3088256E91007CC1C9/$file/0315735.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The plaintiffs in this class action are independent truck drivers. Defendants are federally regulated motor carriers that contract with owneroperators to transport cargo across the country. They contend that the district court should have granted the motion for injunctive relief upon a showing of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/06/97-6083.htm">97-6083 -- HALLCO ENVIRONMENTAL INC. V. COMANCHE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMM. -- 06/10/1998<BR></A><BR> There is a non refundable application fee of $90. A $4.00 per ton tipping fee is added to each ton received at the landfill. A majority vote at a special county election is needed to approve the landfill at an additional cost of $24. There are specific location restrictions. Hallco initiated this action alleging its rights were violated by the enactment of the regulations. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/176138E4BA37484F88256A150060011C/$file/0055621.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This is the third appeal by Defendant Southwest Marine. Were consolidated and earlier heard by this court. While the consolidated appeal was pending. Work is conducted at its five piers and two floating dry docks. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/05/98-8096.htm">98-8096 -- STATE OF WYOMING V. FEDERATED SERVICE INSURANCE CO. -- 05/02/2000<BR></A><BR> WDEQ issued a letter of violation notifying Montana Petroleum that it was operating in violation of Wyo. At the time the leak was discovered by Wyoming. Montana Petroleum was insured under both a comprehensive general liability policy and a commercial umbrella liability policy issued by Federated. The primary purpose of the Corrective Action Act is to protect Wyoming's groundwater supply from leaking oil storage tanks while ensuring that state and federally mandated clean up standards do not bankrupt businesses vital to supplying oil throughout the rural state. <u>See</u> Wyo. It also gives the State of Wyoming the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/01/99-2346.htm">99-2346 -- AMIGOS BRAVOS V. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY -- 01/03/2001<BR></A><BR> The district court concluded that the suit is barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel and dismissed the matter with prejudice.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/06D97F07AF20A33288256C0C007D9461/$file/9915614.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Insurers allege that MERLO is preempted by the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response. Health & Safety ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-6025.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The court concluded Valley View's federal claims were precluded by the doctrines of claim and issue preclusion due to a defense it raised in related state litigation brought by Duke. Preclusion is generally a knotty issue. We will refer to them collectively as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/05/99-1327.htm">99-1327 -- METRO WASTERWATER RECLAMATION DISTRICT V. FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE CO. -- 05/24/2002<BR></A><BR> The insurer contends that reversal is warranted by erroneous jury instructions regarding the timeliness of the notice and the district court's improper interpretation of the insurance policies' pollution exclusion clause. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/06/972987P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This appeal is the latest round in a series of litigation spawned by the State of Minnesota's attempts to control the collection. (2) project the amount of waste that will be generated in the county over the next decade. (3) describe programs to assure that the county will meet statutorilyestablished recycling goals. All public entities within the county must have their waste delivered to that facility. That section first requires a determination of whether the county's designated method is favored over the entity's proposed method according to a statutory list ranking waste management practices. If the county's method is preferred. The Association is a non profit trade association. Whose members include Minnesota businesses which have waste collection and disposal contracts with various Minnesota public entities. Standing </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-9577.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was fired after refusing to drive his truck. Dalton filed a complaint with the Department of Labor asserting that his truck was unsafe and that his firing violated a provision of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 (STAA) prohibiting the termination of an employee for refusing to operate a vehicle when he or she </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/06/963293P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. Everest is a general securities broker dealer that became a registered member of the NASD in December of 1991 and began business on January 31. Kunkel was the President. Everest was to act as exclusive selling agent for the private placement. The memorandum stated that the City of Watkins had already granted preliminary approval for the construction of the facility and that GED was at the time pursuing the issuance of permits from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and had engaged a lobbyist to seek changes in state laws and regulations in order to allow the project to proceed. The memorandum also stated that the offering was a ninety day. The memorandum cautioned that the shares offered were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/06/01-4129.htm">01-4129 -- DAVIS V. MINETA -- 06/20/2002<BR></A><BR> The widening and extension of existing 11400 South.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/08/042204P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. BACKGROUND Lake Sakakawea is a reservoir in North Dakota formed by the enclosure of the Garrison Dam. Also released today. 32 1 The CWA is a federal law that directs the states to adopt state law waterquality standards. Holding that the CWA preserves sovereign immunity from suit for the Corps when the Corps' authority to maintain navigation is at issue. The district court's interpretation of the CWA is reviewed de novo. This waiver of sovereign immunity is further limited by 33 U.S.C. § 1371(a). Judicial inquiry is complete. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/03/041497P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Whichever is greater. 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B). Universal presented numerous arguments against coverage that depended upon the policy's definitions of the terms </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/02/024024P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Soil contamination was discovered in the burn area in 1989 and corrected in 1990 with the assistance of the Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology (now the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ)). Environmental consultants reported to Highland that the burn area's groundwater was contaminated. Asserting that all of Highland's claims were barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. Since this case is here under our diversity jurisdiction. At issue in this case is when the statute began to run. Because it was not until then that Highland knew the nature and extent of its injury. The Arkansas Supreme Court first asserted that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/09/013645P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was sued by its neighbor. The issues on appeal are whether the insurers may litigate the indemnity issue after breaching their duty to defend. Whether Kirksville is collaterally estopped by a prior state court ruling that no trespass occurred. Royal initially defended Kirksville under a reservation of rights but withdrew its defense when the district court held there was no duty to defend. Kirksville claims the insurers are liable for the $270. (ii) that Kirksville was collaterally estopped to relitigate the trespass issue by the state court's summary judgment ruling. Kirksville was entitled to settle the state court action with Lewistown after Royal abandoned the defense. It is clear the insurer remains obligated to reimburse the insured for any settlement obligation covered by the liability policy. Kirksville would have us go further. This issue of Missouri law is important in this case for two reasons. The duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify because the insurer's duty to defend arises when there is merely the potential for coverage. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/09/002430P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The court also granted summary judgment to the United States on the amount of cleanup costs it was entitled to recover from Dico. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/11/992894P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Judge Gibson was unable to review this opinion prior to its filing. The opinion is consistent with Judge Gibson's vote at conference. The notice of appeal was timely filed pursuant to Fed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Alleging that their properties have been contaminated by pollutants from the Asarco site. Were emitted into the air from stacks and other sources at the Omaha plant. Defendant avers that a substantial volume of these air emissions were captured by emission control devices 3 the air from the site did not have adverse public health effects. Plaintiffs were required to show that they each individually satisfied the $75. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/08/993679P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The United States filed suit against Findett seeking to have Findett held responsible for response and remediation actions at the site. The consent decree made it clear that Findett was not admitting. The court was not finding. It has been represented to this Court that the purpose of the tolling agreement was to facilitate settlement negotiations. All of the defendants except Findett have settled with the government. We review de novo and will affirm if we conclude there are no genuine issues of material fact and the government is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Findett believes that the EPA's 1997 suit is time barred and argues here that. Genuine issues of material fact remain to be resolved before it can be determined whether the suit was timely filed. The answer to the statute of limitations question depends in the first instance upon whether this case is properly characterized. If this is an initial action. Then the government was required to bring suit </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/03/00-1500.htm">00-1500 -- RAYTON CONSTRUCTORS INC. V. ASARCO INCORPORATED -- 03/11/2003<BR></A><BR> We reverse as to Raytheon's liability and therefore need not reach the cross appeal regarding damages. <p> <center><strong>I.</strong></center> <p> The mine at issue in this case was owned by the Colorado Corporation when. Was elected chairman and president of RMI. Is best characterized as that of minority shareholder rather than </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=09&date=01&year=98">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=08&date=01&year=04">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/03/01-1379.htm">01-1379 -- UNITED STEEL WORKERS OF AMERICA V. OREGON STEEL MILLS INC. -- 03/03/2003<BR></A><BR> Colorado (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-2932.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Future liabilities have been apportioned between Johnson Electric and Nevada Bond. So that even if Lear should be held liable (because it is in the chain of title). Each may insist that the other is responsible. A suit was filed in Columbus. The plaintiffs contend that hazardous substances have leaked from UTA's automobile parts manufacturing facility. Because the Columbus plant is still operating. There was no actual knowledge as of 1999 of environmental problems. Johnson Electric contended that Lear (and thus Nevada Bond) had retained the liability because any leaks came from </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-4211.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court dismissed the complaint on the ground that Exxon had no duty under federal law to remediate pollution on Albany's property prior to investigation and that Exxon was prevented from investigating by Albany itself. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.1 I There is little more to the facts than what we have already stated. Requested access to investigate petroleum releases that might have migrated onto Albany's property. Exxon was willing to agree to warrant its investigative work. It initiated this action under the citizen suit provision of the Resource Conservation 1 We are not sure why the members of the board of directors were also named. This court has permitted district courts to examine </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-2667_021.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have substituted the current acting United States Secretary of Transportation. It held that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of their claims because those claims likely were barred by claim preclusion. They contend that the doctrine of res judicata is not applicable to the present case because the claims that they seek to litigate here are factually and legally distinct from those that they litigated previously. Because we believe that the district court correctly held that this action is barred by res judicata. Facts 3 There are two construction projects at issue in this litigation. Both are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/02/03-6088.htm">03-6088 -- NATIONAL AMERICAN INSURANCE CO. V. AMERICAN RE-INSURANCE CO. -- 02/12/2004<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=03-3277_031.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Those petitions were consolidated before this court. Pending resolution by the Fifth Circuit as to whether those petitioners were required to obtain a permit in the first instance. After the Fifth Circuit held that the Oil and Gas Petitioners' challenge to the application of the General Permit was not ripe for review. Before briefing was due. The discharge of pollutants into navigable waters is illegal unless authorized by a permit issued pursuant to § 402 of the Act. 33 U.S.C. § 1342. Which was feasible for regulating discharges from wastewater facilities or industrial plants. By the 1980's it became clear that the individual permitting process was unworkable to regulate storm water discharges which can occur virtually anywhere. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0253p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The plaintiffs are a collection of associations and individuals led by the American Civil Liberties Union. Because we cannot find that any of the plaintiffs have standing for any of their claims. Of telephone and email communications where one party to the communication is located outside the United States and the NSA has </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/06/03-5035.htm">03-5035 -- QUARLES V. U.S. STATES OF AMERICA -- 06/16/2004<BR></A><BR> Drummond (Will K. Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0302p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Where the cleanup costs were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/aug96/95-6095.wpd.html">CONOCO INC. V. CONOCO PIPELINE CO.<BR></A><BR> Moore brought this action alleging their property was polluted by Conoco. Alleging that the leak was caused by the installation of an ONG pipeline on top of the Conoco pipeline. The ONG pipeline was resting on top of the Conoco pipeline and had caused a dent at the location of the rupture. Whose property was in the vicinity of the 1976 leak. The State of Oklahoma investigated and concluded that the source of the gasoline was the 1976 leak. Whose property is adjacent to the Keen property. ONG stipulated that the settlement and the state ordered cleanup costs were reasonable. ONG moved for a directed verdict determining as a matter of law that P&A was an independent contractor for whose negligent acts ONG would not be liable. Holding that fact issues existed regarding P&A's (2) State waters and other properties were polluted as a result of the leak. independence. The jury found that Conoco and ONG were each negligent on an equal basis. That Conoco was entitled to contribution for fifty percent of the amount it paid in settlement to the Moores. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0058p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Court is asked to decide whether the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0265p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A group of public agencies and private companies based in Indiana and Ohio have petitioned this court for a review of a final decision issued by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding state regulatory schemes governing toxic discharges into the Great Lakes. The purpose of which is to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-6222.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> As we are reversing the grant of summary judgment. The </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0406p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Concluding that GenCorp was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions%5Cpub%5C03/03-30677-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It also found that Ordinance 221 was not barred by the mineral reservation in favor of the state in the deed conveying the lake to the city or by state regulation of oil and gas drilling in Louisiana. We agree that EMC's takings claim is prescribed but find that Ordinance 221 is preempted by Louisiana's comprehensive regulation of oil and gas drilling. I. Cross Lake is located just outside of Shreveport. Is the main source of water for the city. The Secretary of State conveyed </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/071675p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge Shipping solid waste to Midwestern landfills has become big business particularly in places like New Jersey where capacity at in state landfills is scarce. Railroads are prime beneficiaries of the increased demand for the means of shipping waste across the country. Which often is brought to the loading facility by truck. Transferring solid waste from truck to rail car is not the cleanest of businesses. Is historically the subject of federal regulation. Because we conclude that the District Court's factfinding does not support its conclusion that all of the State's environmental regulations at issue are preempted here. They then paid </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/053020np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Based on the IJ's determination that Ugbome's story was not credible and was not sufficiently corroborated. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). We will grant the petition for review. I. Ugbome is a thirty eight year old native and citizen of Nigeria. Her asylum claim is based upon persecution she claims to have suffered as a result of her husband's political activism and subsequent disappearance. Her asylum hearing was held on October 20. Ugbome testified that her husband was invariably arrested during or after the protests. Her husband was detained for about a week after each protest and would return home with a swollen face and bruises from beatings. Ugbome stated that she believed they would have physically hurt her if not for the presence of her daughter (who died due to a congenital heart defect before Ugbome came to the United States). Ugbome left the Delta region in May 2004 because </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/052253p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This case presents the Court with the issue of whether neighboring property owners who allege that their property values will be diminished and their neighborhood blighted by the construction of a storage facility have standing to sue under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The focus of this case is the propriety of the Darby Township Zoning Hearing Board's ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/044457p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Wayne and Suzanne Hallowell and Merrill and Betty Mest are dairy farmers whose cows suffered from various ailments over the course of twenty years before being diagnosed with fluorosis in 1999.1 Upon learning the cause of their cows' symptoms. The Fluorosis is a disease caused by fluoride poisoning. That Cabot fraudulently misled the plaintiffs to believe that the emissions were harmless. Held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to damages for emotional distress. The plaintiffs' claims are not time barred. The plaintiffs' farms are located one to four miles from a facility (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043702p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Where the suit was litigated. Or that local counsel were unwilling to take on the litigation. Then it will be entitled to compensation based on prevailing rates in the community in which its attorneys practice. We are satisfied that the District Court's finding that ICO had satisfied the second exception was not clearly erroneous. We will therefore affirm the District Court's decision to award compensation based on prevailing market rates in Washington. We find that ICO is entitled to compensation for the travel time of its attorneys as well as the reasonable fees of its local counsel. We nonetheless conclude that the District Court's finding in this regard was not clearly erroneous. We will affirm the District Court's determination of the appropriate hourly rates. We agree that the District Court's review was inadequate. Hence we will vacate those aspects of the award challenged by Honeywell. We also agree that the fee request was excessive. We conclude that the District Court's decision to do so was not an abuse of discretion. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/042095p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> TRUST UNDER LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF RALPH MCEWAN Appellants v. This is an appeal by plaintiffs Alice Jaasma and the Trust of Ralph McEwan (hereinafter </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug2001/99-11638.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. HANSEN (8/24/2001, NO. 99-11638)<BR></A><BR> Was hired as an executive vice president in 1992. Which is on a site adjacent to tidal marshes and Purvis Creek. Each cellroom was about the size of a football field and contained fifty mercury </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA0LTQ3MDQtY3Zfc28ucGRm/04-4704-cv_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTkwMzhfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-9038_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The areas to be inspected were a residential dock and adjacent areas located on tidal wetlands off the rear portion of Palmieri's backyard. Palmieri's claim is one essentially sounding in trespass quare clausum fregit that has escalated into a constitutional claim of Fourth Amendment violations only because the trespassers were representatives of a state government regulatory agency. Entry of these state actors was responsive to Palmieri's desire to obtain a necessary permit to conduct construction work on his property. That the agents were dispatched by Palmieri within minutes of their entry and that no damage was done might have justified the disposition of this case by application of the maxim de minimis non curat lex. Because of the 1 John Doe #1 is presumably the intern who accompanied Lynch on her inspection. We are constrained to undertake the more elaborate analysis that follows. The property is situated on Long Island's Great South Bay and encompasses both New York State regulated tidal wetlands and a regulated adjacent area. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug96/95-2192.opa.html">BOUCHARD TRANSP. CO. V. FLORIDA DEPT. OF ENV. PROTECTION<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Bouchard Transp. The district court either declined to rule or deferred ruling on various motions in which DEP argued it was entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. Two tug barge flotillas and a freighter were involved in a collision near Tampa Bay. Was served with notice in all three limitation actions.<p> DEP filed answers and affirmative claims for relief under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. A motions panel of this court held that the district court's order compelling DEP to participate in mediation was immediately appealable. We agree. <i>See</i> 11th Cir.R. 27 1(f) (ruling of a motions panel is not binding on panel to which case is assigned for disposition on merits). DEP argues that we have jurisdiction over this appeal because the district court's order rejected its assertion of Eleventh Amendment immunity. <i>See Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Auth. v. We have jurisdiction to review the court's order directing DEP to mediate. <i>See Collins v. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA2LTAzMzUtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/06-0335-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (iii) the law was not an improper or abusive exercise of town's police power. Is unconstitutional. Contending that it was based on inadmissible evidence. We affirm the judgment in all other respects. 3 BACKGROUND Cross Sound is a Connecticut based corporation that provides interstate ferry service transporting passengers. As well as one high speed ferry that carries only passengers and is capable of traveling at greater speeds than vehicular ferries. Cross Sound's challenge to the law is before us in this appeal. I. Geographical Backdrop Long Island is an island in the Atlantic Ocean that comprises the southeasternmost part of New York State. From which it is separated to the north by Long Island Sound. Suffolk County occupies the easternmost portion of Long Island and is bordered to the west by Nassau County. Which are separated by Shelter Island Sound. The Town of Shelter Island is an island located in between 4 the forks. Traffic volumes on the highway during summers are currently at or near capacity. Traffic on other Town roads during the summer months is rising rapidly at an average rate of 8% per year. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTY5NDQtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-6944-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because the grant of partial summary judgment was neither a final 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 nor an appealable interlocutory order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). The plaintiffs sought relief on four theories: (1) that Union Carbide was a direct participant and joint tortfeasor in the activities that resulted in the pollution. After this appeal was heard on November 15. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug98/96-8655.man.html">CAMPAIGN FOR A PROSPEROUS GEORGIA V. SEC (8/11/1998, NO. 96-8655)<BR></A><BR> CPG argues that the SEC: 1) misapplied its own rule by not requiring Southern to specify the particular investments it would make and demonstrate that each one would not have a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTE5NDktY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-1949-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: A perceptive governor once noted: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug99/97-9357.man.html">CANADYNE-GEORGIA CORP. V. NATIONSBANK (8/11/1999, NO. 97-9357)<BR></A><BR> Claiming they were liable under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA). Woolfolk was a general partner in WCW. His will named the Bank as co executor of his estate. It was purchased by a corporate affiliate of Canadyne. It was not until the 1990s that the EPA required Canadyne to clean up the Site.</P> <P> Canadyne sued. Concluding the Bank was not a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200610482.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> PER CURIAM: The appeals of Anthony Richard Kinard and Denny Warren Schmitz were consolidated for oral argument because the appellants' arrests and convictions arise out of the same incident and both raise the same two issues on appeal. We have carefully reviewed the record and find no reversible error in the district court's denial of the motion after an evidentiary hearing. Application Note 19 states in part: Subsection (b)(8)(A) applies if the conduct for which the defendant is accountable under § 1B1.3 (Relevant Conduct) involved any discharge. We will refer to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(8)(A) for the remainder of this opinion. 3 2 U.S. The district court would have had to find that the release of anhydrous ammonia in this case was unlawful in that it violated one of the four federal environmental statutes listed in Application Note 19. Such application was improper here. Officer Wayne Goolsby from the Narcotics and Vice Section of the Mobile County Sheriff's Office testified that he was certified to train personnel in cleaning up methamphetamine labs. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200610043.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> PER CURIAM: The appeals of Anthony Richard Kinard and Denny Warren Schmitz were consolidated for oral argument because the appellants' arrests and convictions arise out of the same incident and both raise the same two issues on appeal. We have carefully reviewed the record and find no reversible error in the district court's denial of the motion after an evidentiary hearing. Application Note 19 states in part: Subsection (b)(8)(A) applies if the conduct for which the defendant is accountable under § 1B1.3 (Relevant Conduct) involved any discharge. We will refer to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(8)(A) for the remainder of this opinion. 3 2 U.S. The district court would have had to find that the release of anhydrous ammonia in this case was unlawful in that it violated one of the four federal environmental statutes listed in Application Note 19. Such application was improper here. Officer Wayne Goolsby from the Narcotics and Vice Section of the Mobile County Sheriff's Office testified that he was certified to train personnel in cleaning up methamphetamine labs. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200516000.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This appeal presents a question about state taxation of railroad properties that was expressly left open by the Supreme Court of the United States. We are asked to decide whether section 306 of the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (4 R Act or the Act). The 4 R Act provides an exception to the general rule of the Tax Injunction Act that federal district courts will not interfere with matters of state taxation. The district court refused to consider an appraisal proffered by the Railroad that valued the property of the Railroad at $6 billion because the district court concluded that the appraisal was based on a valuation methodology different from the one used by the State. I. BACKGROUND The Railroad is a wholly owned subsidiary of CSX Corporation. Public utilities are centrallyassessed taxpayers. Although most taxpayers in Georgia are assessed. The Board then certifies the proposed assessments to each county in which taxable property is owned. Is not required to. That amount is then multiplied by the percentage of the entity located within Georgia to determine what portion of the value of the company should be allocated to the state. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan96/94-9278.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan98/95-9603.man.html">COLONIAL OIL INDUS., INC. V. UNDERWRITERS SUBSCRIBING TO POLICY NOS. TO31504670 AND TO31504671 (1/26/1998, NO. 95-9603)<BR></A><BR> We certified the following questions to the Supreme Court of Georgia:</P> <P> 1) Does an insurer have a duty to conduct a reasonable investigation of facts outside those presented in the complaint. The requirement that an insurer base its decision on true facts will necessitate that the insurer conduct a reasonable investigation into its insured's contentions.... An insurer who fails to investigate its insured's contentions and refuses a defense will be liable for a breach of the duty to defend if a reasonable investigation at the time would have established the potential for coverage....</P> <P> According to the district court's summary judgment order. Because the district court also found that a reasonable investigation would have revealed the possible existence of coverage. 357 S.E.2d 327 (1987) ] that the insurer is not estopped to raise policy defenses. The rationale for this rule is that when the insurer breaches the contract by wrongfully refusing to provide a defense. The insured is entitled to receive only what it is owed under the contract the cost of defense. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july2001/00-12002.man.html">UNITED STATES V. GREAT LAKES DREDGE & DOCK CO. (7/30/2001, NO. 00-12002)<BR></A><BR> The government's cross appeal concerns the district court's ruling that no primary restoration is required for the grounding site. Specifically that no action is the best alternative for addressing damage at the grounding site. One of the pipes in a raft towed by Miss Necie dragged the sea bottom creating a pipe scar approximately 13 miles long.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july98/96-3494.man.html">BOUCHARD TRANSP. CO., INC. V. UPDEGRAFF (7/31/1998, NO. 96-3494)<BR></A><BR> Is entitled to Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity from a maritime limitation proceeding initiated pursuant to Rule F of the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims (Rule F). Are subject to Rule F and therefore constrained to Rule F limitation proceedings. Are subject to Rule F and therefore constrained to Rule F limitation proceedings.</P> <P><CENTER>I. The Admiralty Rules were variously amended. Was adopted in 1966.</P> <P> Rule F(1) states that a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200015305.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Are not subject to the Limitation of Vessel Owner's Liability Act. The question of whether the United States' claims brought pursuant to PSRPA are subject to the Limitation Act is one of first impression. If the limitation is granted. The vessel owner subsequently is found liable. It was entitled to all damages due to injuries to resources in the National Park as a result of the grounding.3 The relevant provisions of the PSRPA include: 16 U.S.C. § 19jj 1(a): [A]ny person who destroys. Or injures any park system resource is liable to the United States for the response costs and damages resulting from such destruction. As limitation is based on the post accident value of the vessel and its freight. Especially in cases in which the vessel sinks or the freight is lost. Or injury to the same extent as a person is liable under subsection (a) of this section. 16 U.S.C. § 19jj(c): </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200012002.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The government's cross appeal concerns the district court's ruling that no primary restoration is required for the grounding site. Specifically that no action is the best alternative for addressing damage at the grounding site. One of the pipes in a raft towed by Miss Necie dragged the sea bottom creating a pipe scar approximately 13 miles long. 2 The following facts caused grounding site damage which is the subject of this appeal. Was tied to the Captain Joe. Captain Joe was powered off the bank by a combination of its own motor and the Cavalier State. Which was consolidated with the federal case. Florida is not a party to this appeal. Finding that Great Lakes was strictly liable under the NMSA for all damages to the sanctuary. The government is entitled to recover the cost of implementing its plan to restore or replace the injured resource. So the damage caused is not a part of this appeal. The </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200012002.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The government's cross appeal concerns the district court's ruling that no primary restoration is required for the grounding site. Specifically that no action is the best alternative for addressing damage at the grounding site. The following facts caused grounding site damage which is the subject of this appeal. Was tied to the Captain Joe. Captain Joe was powered off the bank by a combination of its own motor and the Cavalier State. Which was consolidated with the federal case. Florida is not a party to this appeal. Finding that Great Lakes was strictly liable under the NMSA for all damages to the sanctuary. The government is entitled to recover the cost of implementing its plan to restore or replace the injured resource. So the damage caused is not a part of this appeal. The </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199911638.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was hired as an executive vice president in 1992. Which is on a site adjacent to tidal marshes and Purvis Creek. Each cellroom was about the size of a football field and contained fifty mercury </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19963494.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is entitled to Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity from a maritime limitation proceeding initiated pursuant to Rule F of the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims (Rule F). Are subject to Rule F and therefore constrained to Rule F limitation proceedings. Are subject to Rule F and therefore constrained to Rule F limitation proceedings. The Admiralty Rules were variously amended. Was adopted in 1966. The Owners allege their liability is limited under OPA 90 to $1. Notices were issued to potential claimants that all claims against each of the Owners had to be filed in the respective limitation proceeding within 60 days or the right to recover from the Owners would be forfeited. This case has a long and complicated procedural history.2 We are concerned here with three of the district court's rulings. The district court ruled that Florida is entitled to sovereign immunity from the limitation proceeding. Concluding that claims brought pursuant to OPA 90 are not subject to Rule F and therefore cannot be constrained to the limitation proceeding. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19963494.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is entitled to Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity from a maritime limitation proceeding initiated pursuant to Rule F of the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims (Rule F). Are subject to Rule F and therefore constrained to Rule F limitation proceedings. Are subject to Rule F and therefore constrained to Rule F limitation proceedings. The Admiralty Rules were variously amended. Was adopted in 1966. The Owners allege their liability is limited under OPA 90 to $1. Notices were issued to potential claimants that all claims against each of the Owners had to be filed in the respective limitation proceeding within 60 days or the right to recover from the Owners would be forfeited. This case has a long and complicated procedural history.2 We are concerned here with three of the district court's rulings. The district court ruled that Florida is entitled to sovereign immunity from the limitation proceeding. Concluding that claims brought pursuant to OPA 90 are not subject to Rule F and therefore cannot be constrained to the limitation proceeding. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19959603.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We certified the following questions to the Supreme Court of Georgia: 1) Does an insurer have a duty to conduct a reasonable investigation of facts outside those presented in the complaint. The requirement that an insurer base its decision on true facts will necessitate that the insurer conduct a reasonable investigation into its insured's contentions. . . . An insurer who fails to investigate its insured's contentions and refuses a defense will be liable for a breach of the duty to defend if a reasonable investigation at the time would have established the potential for coverage. . . . Because the district court also found that a reasonable investigation would have revealed the possible existence of coverage. [357 S.E.2d 327 (1987)] that the insurer is not estopped to raise policy defenses. The rationale for this rule is that when the insurer breaches the contract by wrongfully refusing to provide a defense. The insured is entitled to receive only what it is owed under the contract the cost of defense. The court erred in holding that the Underwriters were estopped from raising policy defenses to coverage. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19959603.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We certified the following questions to the Supreme Court of Georgia: 1) Does an insurer have a duty to conduct a reasonable investigation of facts outside those presented in the complaint. The requirement that an insurer base its decision on true facts will necessitate that the insurer conduct a reasonable investigation into its insured's contentions.... An insurer who fails to investigate its insured's contentions and refuses a defense will be liable for a breach of the duty to defend if a reasonable investigation at the time would have established the potential for coverage.... Because the district court also found that a reasonable investigation would have revealed the possible existence of coverage. 357 S.E.2d 327 (1987) ] that the insurer is not estopped to raise policy defenses. The rationale for this rule is that when the insurer breaches the contract by wrongfully refusing to provide a defense. The insured is entitled to receive only what it is owed under the contract the cost of defense. The court erred in holding that the Underwriters were estopped from raising policy defenses to coverage. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19952192.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sitting by designation. declined to rule or deferred ruling on various motions in which DEP argued it was entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. Two tug barge flotillas and a freighter were involved in a collision near Tampa Bay. Was served with notice in all three limitation actions. FLA.STAT.ANN. §§ The parties dispute whether there was contact between all three vessels. Whether there were actually two collisions. 1 376.011 to 376.21 (West 1988). A motions panel of this court held that the district court's order compelling DEP to participate in mediation was immediately appealable. See 11th Cir.R. 27 1(f) (ruling of a motions panel is not binding on panel to which case is assigned for disposition on merits). DEP argues that we have jurisdiction over this appeal because the district court's order rejected its assertion of Eleventh Amendment immunity. We have jurisdiction to review the court's order directing DEP to mediate. 1205 (11th Cir.1993) (holding that an order declining immediately to rule on qualified Like a immunity public pending trial is appealable). official's qualified immunity. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19942294.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Appellees took the position that resort to this claims presentation process is a mandatory condition precedent to any OPA lawsuit. Thomas Baggett were named as defendants for their role in operating another vessel involved in the spill. DISCUSSION The only issue before us is whether the district court correctly found that compliance with OPA's claims presentation requirement is a mandatory condition precedent to the existence of jurisdiction over private actions brought under the Act.7 A. Standard of Review Statutory interpretation is a question of law over which we Appellants did not allege compliance with the claims presentation procedure until their reply brief. That Appellants now are asserting compliance with OPA's claims presentation provision. The issue before us is a classic example of one </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19942294.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Spilling thousands of gallons of oil and other oil pollutants in We affirm the award of costs to Appellees as they are the prevailing parties in this litigation. 1 the process.2 Pursuant to OPA. Appellees took the position that resort to this claims presentation process is a mandatory condition precedent to any OPA lawsuit. Thomas Baggett were named as defendants for their role in operating another vessel involved in the spill. DISCUSSION The only issue before us is whether the district court correctly found that compliance with OPA's claims presentation requirement is a mandatory condition precedent to the existence of Appellants did not allege compliance with the claims presentation procedure until their reply brief. That Appellants now are asserting compliance with OPA's claims presentation provision. The issue before us is a classic example of one </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1752.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Environment & Natural Resources Division were on brief for the United States. John Uphoff Figueroa were on brief for Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority. This is an end note to wide ranging. The two parties finally succeeded in negotiating an agreement that was converted by district court approval into a consent decree in 1999. Felt that its interests were not being sufficiently protected and successfully sought intervention as a party in 1996. Were accepted in the decree's final version. CUCCo's request for counsel fees was summarily denied. The issues raised by CUCCo on appeal are: (1) whether the district court erred in refusing to hold an evidentiary hearing on the adequacy of the decree. Insofar as is relevant to these issues. Is as follows. Civil penalties and injunctive relief were sought. Was more than </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-8022.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for Philip Morris appellants. Were on brief for United States Tobacco Company appellants. Were on brief for appellees. The specific plaintiffs appellants are Philip Morris Incorporated. The specific defendants appellees are L. We consider the statutes' respective texts along with the relevant historical and legislative contexts in which they were enacted. Normally we consider the record evidence with respect to each motion separately </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-2327.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief for appellees Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the United States. Alleging that the City was in violation of the Clean Water Act. The Commonwealth intervened as a party plaintiff and alleged that the City was violating both the state and federal clean water acts. That the City was discharging pollutants into the waters of the United States and the Commonwealth. The decree was amended several times thereafter. It was amended to give the City discretion to use Septic Tank Effluent Pump ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept96/94-8485.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1697.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Reed with whom Reed & Reed was on brief for appellants. Were on brief for appellee. We must determine whether a policy issued by defendant appellee International Surplus Lines Insurance Company (ISLIC) covers clean up costs which were imposed upon plaintiffs appellants Alan Corporation and East Side Oil Company. The district court found that the clean up costs were not covered by the policy. The policy was a one year </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1453.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Inc. was on brief for appellants. Were on brief for appellee. Because we conclude that the energy related components of HUD and FmHA utility reimbursements are excluded by statute from income under the Food Stamp Act. BACKGROUND BACKGROUND The defendant appellees are the Secretary of USDA (Secretary) and the Commissioner of the Maine Department of Human Services. Plaintiffs are a class of tenants receiving food stamps. In privately owned FmHA assisted housing.1 1The class includes [a]ll the persons in the State of Maine who will receive or who have received FmHA and/or HUD utility [reimbursements] anytime since March 1. 1990 and whose food stamp benefits were or will be 2 Plaintiffs. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1234.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The appellants are residents of Winterport. The magistrate judge's recommended decision was based on his understanding that the appellants' Section 1983 claim 2 alleged a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2001/99-11638.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. HANSEN (8/24/2001, NO. 99-11638)<BR></A><BR> Was hired as an executive vice president in 1992. Which is on a site adjacent to tidal marshes and Purvis Creek. Each cellroom was about the size of a football field and contained fifty mercury </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-4274.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Both parcels are located south of the Bloomington Exit on the east side of I 15 in the City. The City's manager allegedly refused to provide such a letter because the City was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1208.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for appellee. * Of the District of Massachusetts. The NRC investigators concluded that the employee may have disclosed confidential information to appellant and that the employee may have failed to pass on to other officials relevant safety information received from the appellant. Appellant never complied with the subpoena and was ultimately fined $135. They also provide no assistance to appellant.1 The relevant functions are defined in section 4 which imposes upon each Inspector General the responsibility. (1) to review agency activities for the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1895.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Gallagher & Spielberg were on brief. Were on brief. Jr. and Ropes & Gray were on brief. There is. BACKGROUND The litigation that undergirds this appeal is nearly a decade old. NWF argued that 2The statute provides that the federal government may grant covenants not to sue to CERCLA defendants . . . if each of the following conditions is met: (A) The covenant not to sue is in the public interest. (C) The [covenantee] is in full compliance with a consent decree under [CERCLA] section 9606 . . . (including a consent decree entered into in accordance with this section) for response to the release or threatened release concerned. Is the lone appellant. THE NECESSITY FOR STANDING Our odyssey through the often Byzantine world of standing is greatly assisted in this instance by the Supreme Court's opinion in Diamond v. Since the intervenor was the sole appellant. Justice Blackmun wrote that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug96/95-2192.opa.html">BOUCHARD TRANSP. CO. V. FLORIDA DEPT. OF ENV. PROTECTION<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Bouchard Transp. The district court either declined to rule or deferred ruling on various motions in which DEP argued it was entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. Two tug barge flotillas and a freighter were involved in a collision near Tampa Bay. Was served with notice in all three limitation actions.<p> DEP filed answers and affirmative claims for relief under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. A motions panel of this court held that the district court's order compelling DEP to participate in mediation was immediately appealable. We agree. <i>See</i> 11th Cir.R. 27 1(f) (ruling of a motions panel is not binding on panel to which case is assigned for disposition on merits). DEP argues that we have jurisdiction over this appeal because the district court's order rejected its assertion of Eleventh Amendment immunity. <i>See Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Auth. v. We have jurisdiction to review the court's order directing DEP to mediate. <i>See Collins v. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1709.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Johnston</SPAN> and <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1145.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Nelson</SPAN> were on brief. Were on brief. Bauser</SPAN> were on brief. The petitioners and petitioner intervenors are public interest groups. Supported by the Attorneys General of five states (who have filed a helpful amicus brief). We have studied the complex statutory and regulatory framework and scrutinized the plenitudinous administrative record. BACKGROUND</STRONG></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-2600.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Entered summary judgment for the City on the ground that the restrictions were narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest. O is located at 599 Thames Street in Newport. The property is zoned </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-1133.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Were on brief. Which was insured by appellee St. Under the theory that this claim was not covered by the 1998 agreement with St. Was added as a defendant to the Maine lawsuit in August 1998. Paul was the professional liability insurer for the MPM Law Firm and its employees. Depending upon which hat he was wearing at the time of his actions.</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug98/96-8655.man.html">CAMPAIGN FOR A PROSPEROUS GEORGIA V. SEC (8/11/1998, NO. 96-8655)<BR></A><BR> CPG argues that the SEC: 1) misapplied its own rule by not requiring Southern to specify the particular investments it would make and demonstrate that each one would not have a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1656.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Harrow</U> was on brief. Were on brief. Which entitles litigants who prevail against the government to attorney's fees unless the position of the United States was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1340.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Were on brief. Invest Almaz also contends that the jury was not properly instructed on a claim that. Was formed for the purpose of investing the pensions and savings of the parent company's employees. Invest Almaz's intent was to build housing for the parent company's retired employees and also to sell OSB for needed hard currency in the export market. Invest Almaz came to the conclusion that it would be more cost effective to purchase the equipment from an existing plant in North America and have it transported back to Russia. </FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1127.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief for appellants.</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/July2002/002139.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is whether the Eleventh Amendment bars suit in federal court against a state official where what is at issue is that * The Honorable Arthur L. Will affirm in part and reverse in part the orders of the District Court. Any person having an interest which is or may be adversely affected may commence a civil action on his own behalf to compel compliance with this chapter (1) against the United States or any other governmental instrumentality or agency to the extent permitted by the eleventh amendment to the Constitution which is alleged to be in violation of the provisions of this chapter or of any rule. Or against any other person who is alleged to be in violation of any rule. Or (2) against the Secretary or the appropriate State regulatory authority to the extent permitted by the eleventh amendment to 3 was also invoked under 28 U.S.C. Defendants in this action for declaratory and injunctive relief are James M. ARIPPA were permitted to intervene as defendants. Seif is the sole named defendant in Counts One through Eight of the eleven count complaint. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/August2004/032958p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The anhydrous ammonia was to be used to manufacture methamphetamine. Anhydrous ammonia vapor was released from the tanks. The District Court sentenced Landmesser to 24 months 1 a) It is unlawful for any person ­ (1) to steal anhydrous ammonia. Or having reasonable cause to believe that such anhydrous ammonia will be used to manufacture a controlled substance in violation of this part. imprisonment. 3 Built into the sentence was a two level enhancement of the base offense level pursuant to the specific offense characteristic at U.S.S.G. § 2D1.12(b)(2). The District Court concluded that (1) anhydrous ammonia is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Apr2002/002502.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. NPI is participating in the creation of a national wireless network to provide </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug99/97-9357.man.html">CANADYNE-GEORGIA CORP. V. NATIONSBANK (8/11/1999, NO. 97-9357)<BR></A><BR> Claiming they were liable under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA). Woolfolk was a general partner in WCW. His will named the Bank as co executor of his estate. It was purchased by a corporate affiliate of Canadyne. It was not until the 1990s that the EPA required Canadyne to clean up the Site.</P> <P> Canadyne sued. Concluding the Bank was not a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1994/94a0897p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jun1997/97a1625p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Until EPA's remedial activities at the site are completed. We will now overrule that portion of Princeton Gamma Tech on which plaintiffs rely and affirm the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The incineration contract was awarded in September 1993. The first step in the implementation of the incineration remedy involves a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July2000/991893.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan96/94-9278.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan98/95-9603.man.html">COLONIAL OIL INDUS., INC. V. UNDERWRITERS SUBSCRIBING TO POLICY NOS. TO31504670 AND TO31504671 (1/26/1998, NO. 95-9603)<BR></A><BR> We certified the following questions to the Supreme Court of Georgia:</P> <P> 1) Does an insurer have a duty to conduct a reasonable investigation of facts outside those presented in the complaint. The requirement that an insurer base its decision on true facts will necessitate that the insurer conduct a reasonable investigation into its insured's contentions.... An insurer who fails to investigate its insured's contentions and refuses a defense will be liable for a breach of the duty to defend if a reasonable investigation at the time would have established the potential for coverage....</P> <P> According to the district court's summary judgment order. Because the district court also found that a reasonable investigation would have revealed the possible existence of coverage. 357 S.E.2d 327 (1987) ] that the insurer is not estopped to raise policy defenses. The rationale for this rule is that when the insurer breaches the contract by wrongfully refusing to provide a defense. The insured is entitled to receive only what it is owed under the contract the cost of defense. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july2001/00-12002.man.html">UNITED STATES V. GREAT LAKES DREDGE & DOCK CO. (7/30/2001, NO. 00-12002)<BR></A><BR> The government's cross appeal concerns the district court's ruling that no primary restoration is required for the grounding site. Specifically that no action is the best alternative for addressing damage at the grounding site. One of the pipes in a raft towed by Miss Necie dragged the sea bottom creating a pipe scar approximately 13 miles long.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jul1998/98a1903p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We conclude that the Coast Guard possessed probable cause to search the Mona Queen and that no warrant was required since searches of ships in general fall within the exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. We have no need to ascertain whether the Fourth Amendment actually applies to searches by U.S. law enforcement agents of U.S. citizens' property in foreign countries. Whether a lower standard is required for such searches. The evidence obtained by the Coast Guard's warrantless search is admissible. We will reverse the order of the district court and remand for further proceedings. Was captain of the M/V Mona 2 Queen and sole owner of Interisland Boat Services (Interisland). Boynes was at the Red Hook ferry dock preparing the Mona Queen for its 6:30 a.m. run to Caneel Bay. Piazza sent a fax to Boynes stating that the Coast Guard was investigating a pollution incident involving the Mona Queen. Which he said was in Nanny Cay. Upon hearing that the Mona Queen was under repair in the British Virgin Islands. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug2001/001391.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He agreed and was permitted to make his own arrangements for the testing. Was discharged. Holding that Kerns' legitimate expectations of privacy were lessened by the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1998/98a1937p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The panel was reconstituted and this matter was reargued on May 22. The question before us is whether. We will allow the courts of this circuit to bypass the Supreme Court's explicit directions merely because counsel failed to interpose an objection to the procedure. I. Before us is an appeal by the Pennsylvania Environmental Defense Foundation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1997/97a1693p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are confronted with a tension between bankruptcy law and labor law. These claims were based on alleged seniority integration rights stemming from a pending labor arbitration dispute and were filed following Continental's acquisition of Eastern and subsequent refusal to bargain over the seniority integration of Eastern's pilots. Both of which are no longer represented by ALPA. Appealed to this court.1 Resolution of this dispute requires us to determine: (1) whether the bankruptcy claims that the LPP Claimants and the Group of 31 seek to enforce constitute </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july98/96-3494.man.html">BOUCHARD TRANSP. CO., INC. V. UPDEGRAFF (7/31/1998, NO. 96-3494)<BR></A><BR> Is entitled to Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity from a maritime limitation proceeding initiated pursuant to Rule F of the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims (Rule F). Are subject to Rule F and therefore constrained to Rule F limitation proceedings. Are subject to Rule F and therefore constrained to Rule F limitation proceedings.</P> <P><CENTER>I. The Admiralty Rules were variously amended. Was adopted in 1966.</P> <P> Rule F(1) states that a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200512/03-1361b.pdf">O:\BENCH_MO\2005-2006\GREENBERGER\MA V. EPA REHEARING\ORDER DENYING REHEARING.REVISED.WPD<BR></A><BR> The District of Columbia for rehearing en banc and the opposition thereto were circulated to the full court. A vote was requested. It is ORDERED that the petition be denied. Is attached. Its refusal to regulate greenhouse gases was arbitrary and capricious. Although the panel's decision denying the petitions has no precedential effect the panel never considered the first question and Judge Randolph's views on the second are his alone the case involves the threat of global warming and its attendant consequences for human health and the environment. If global warming is not a matter of exceptional importance. Then those words have no meaning. 541 F.2d at 29 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200510/04-1083a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the briefs were Howard I. With him on the brief were 2 John C. Elizabeth Cox were on the brief of intervenors Clean Air Implementation Project. Petitioners contend EPA's Part 70 regulations are arbitrary. Because we agree EPA's final rule was not a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200502/01-1072a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Honig were on brief. Were on brief. Gottfried was on brief. Appended to the petition to deny were declarations by one former part time employee. By two other former employees and two unsuccessful job applicants who claimed to have been subjected to discriminatory treatment.1 In the petition. The University responded that it did not believe disclosure of Sullivan's complaint was required because her discrimination suit resulted in a verdict in the University's favor. In May 1997 the FCC sent the University a letter asking the University to explain why it had failed to disclose the Sullivan Also appended was the declaration of Sullivan's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200407/02-1294a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept96/94-8485.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200404/03-1084b.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It is ORDERED that the Opinion filed herein on February 3. Is hereby amended as follows: On Page 18. Clerk BY: Deputy Clerk Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Federal Reporter or U.S.App.D.C. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of any formal errors in order that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press. With her on the brief were Howard J. With her on the brief were J. Those plans were designed to bring the area into compliance with ozone standards prescribed by the Clean Air Act and EPA regulations. Sierra Club also challenges the substance of two elements that were included in the plans. We agree with Sierra Club's principal contention that EPA was not authorized to grant conditional approval to plans that did nothing more than promise to do tomorrow what the Act requires today. Nonattainment areas are further classified as ``marginal. To children and adults who are active outdoors. Each SIP must contain an ``attainment demonstration'' that shows that the area will achieve the NAAQS by the area's statutory attainment deadline. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200402/03-1084a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-1270a.html">HUSQVARNA AB V. EPA<BR></A><BR> Were on brief for the respondent. <span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200304/01-5373a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200302/01-7166a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200207/01-1070a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Howard I. With him on the brief were John C. Donald Trahan were on the brief for amici curiae State of Georgia. Were on the brief for amicus curiae Commonwealth of Virginia. Bosley were on the brief for amicus curiae Metropolitan Washington Air Quality Committee. The Club contends the EPA was without authority to approve revised SIPs that extend the Area's deadline for attainment and do not provide for the States concerned to adopt reasonably available control measures. We hold that the EPA exceeded its authority and that its decision is otherwise arbitrary and capricious in the above respects. Both of which are the precursors of ozone. All states were required to revise their SIPs to bring any areas of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Oct2004/Oct18/03-30677-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It also found that Ordinance 221 was not barred by the mineral reservation in favor of the state in the deed conveying the lake to the city or by state regulation of oil and gas drilling in Louisiana. We agree that EMC's takings claim is prescribed but find that Ordinance 221 is preempted by Louisiana's comprehensive regulation of oil and gas drilling. I. Cross Lake is located just outside of Shreveport. Is the main source of water for the city. The Secretary of State conveyed </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-1070a.html">SIERRA CLUB V. EPA<BR></A><BR> Baron argued the cause for petitioner.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200106/00-1270a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for the respondent. Husqvarna contends that the final rule is arbitrary and capricious because the EPA failed to select the emission standards that represent the best balance of the factors identified in CAA section 213. It also maintains that the regulatory alternative chosen by the EPA is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. The EPA missed the statutory deadline and a lawsuit to enforce the statute was filed. A two stroke engine is an internal combustion engine that accomplishes the operations of intake. In January 1998 the EPA proposed Phase 2 emission standards for handheld engines that were slightly more stringent than those in Phase 1. 63 Fed. The proposed Phase 2 standards were expected to reduce hydrocarbons (HC) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) emissions by 30 per cent beyond Phase 1 standards by the year 2025.3 63 Fed. Handheld engines are smaller and are used in equipment such as chainsaws. Leaf blowers and weed trimmers. 2 An engine family is a grouping of engines within a manufac turer's product line. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200103/99-1325c.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It is ORDERED that the Petition for Rehearing is hereby denied. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the opinion filed herein on December 15. 2000 is hereby amended to substitute the paragraph beginning on the bottom of page 12 and continuing at the top of page 13 with the following: Although we thus believe that section 7412(d)(1)'s language disposes of this issue. We add that our reading of that section is reinforced by the Clean Air Act's legislative history. Practices or strategies which are to be considered in setting emission standards under this subsection go beyond the traditional end of the stack treatment or abatement system. The Administrator is to give priority to technologies or strategies which reduce the amount of pollution generated through process changes or the substitution of materials less hazardous. Pollution prevention is to be the preferred strategy wherever possible. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-1044a.html">ENV DEF FUND V. EPA<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200101/99-1530a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Darin L. Yager were on the brief of amici curiae LPA. With her on the brief were Leonard R. Because we agree with the Board that the unions' activities were protected by the Na tional Labor Relations Act. Because the Board's finding that petitioner's lawsuit was both unmeritorious and retaliato ry is supported by substantial evidence. An internal union report explained: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Oct2004/Oct15/03-30677-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It also found that Ordinance 221 was not barred by the mineral reservation in favor of the state in the deed conveying the lake to the city or by state regulation of oil and gas drilling in Louisiana. We agree that EMC's takings claim is prescribed but find that Ordinance 221 is preempted by Louisiana's comprehensive regulation of oil and gas drilling. I. Cross Lake is located just outside of Shreveport. Is the main source of water for the city. The Secretary of State conveyed </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200007/99-5270a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Richard E. On the brief were David W. Arguing that temporary retention of data for at most six months is neces sary to audit the background check system to ensure both its accuracy and privacy. If the firearm dealer is in a state that has elected to serve as a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/96opinions/96-1234a.html">COL FALLS ALUMINUM V. EPA<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/98opinions/98-1368a.html">ASSN OF BATTERY RECYCLERS, INC. V. EPA<BR></A><BR> </P> <P>briefs were Harold P. With him on the briefs </P> <P>was Steven J. With them on the brief was Cecilia Kim. With him on the brief were </P> <P>Karen Florini. Circuit Judge: These are consolidated petitions </P> <P>for judicial review of Environmental Protection Agency regu </P> <P>lations promulgated on May 26. With </P> <P>EPA's test for determining whether certain wastes are haz </P> <P>ardous. Our opinion is in three parts. We are unani </P> <P>mous that it did not. That EPA's treatment standards for a particular </P> <P>category of hazardous waste are lawful. </P> <P>decides that EPA's test for determining toxicity is valid for </P> <P>certain wastes but not for others. Definition of Solid Waste</P> <P> Two petitioners the National Mining Association and the </P> <P>American Iron and Steel Institute and an intervenor the </P> <P>Chemical Manufacturers Association challenge the portion </P> <P>of EPA's Phase IV Rule defining a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200004/98-1368a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the joint briefs were Harold P. With him on the briefs was Steven J. With them on the brief was Cecilia Kim. With him on the brief were Karen Florini. Circuit Judge: These are consolidated petitions for judicial review of Environmental Protection Agency regu lations promulgated on May 26. With EPA's test for determining whether certain wastes are haz ardous. Our opinion is in three parts. We are unani mous that it did not. That EPA's treatment standards for a particular category of hazardous waste are lawful. Decides that EPA's test for determining toxicity is valid for certain wastes but not for others. I. Definition of Solid Waste Two petitioners the National Mining Association and the American Iron and Steel Institute and an intervenor the Chemical Manufacturers Association challenge the portion of EPA's Phase IV Rule defining a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200001/98-1561a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Bruce W. With her on the brief was Lois J. Sam Kalen and Howard Bleichfeld were on the brief for intervenor. There is some concern about the nation's current RFG production capacity. There is a fifth category. There was no need to include that category because it was automatically covered by Congress's direct mandate. Most areas of the United States that are not in </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/99opinions/99-1530a.html">PETROCHEM INSULATION, INC. V. NLRB<BR></A><BR> Marquess argued the cause for petitioner. </p> <p>With him on the briefs was Darin L. Yager were on the </p> <p>brief of amici curiae LPA. With her on the </p> <p>brief were Leonard R. Because we agree with the </p> <p>Board that the unions' activities were protected by the Na </p> <p>tional Labor Relations Act. Because the Board's finding </p> <p>that petitioner's lawsuit was both unmeritorious and retaliato </p> <p>ry is supported by substantial evidence. We have seen irresponsible companies build pro </p> <p> . </p> <p>jects which have caused more pollution than should be per </p> <p>mitted. We are now threatened with construction moratori </p> <p>ums in many counties in California.". Advocat </p> <p>ing regulatory action which will force construction companies </p> <p>to pay their employees a living wage. The unions </p> <p>are arguing [to local governments] that the economic rewards </p> <p>of development are lost when local people aren't hired at the </p> <p>prevailing wage. Were delaying and ". </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199811/97-1651a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Harvey M. With him on the briefs were Gene E. With him on the brief were Lois J. With him on the brief were Patti Goldman. With him on the brief were Rex R. Circuit Judge: Before the court are petitions to review a rule promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency in 1997 to implement the anti dumping provision of the reformulated gasoline program established by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. The petitioners are the George E. The statutory </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199807/97-1276a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were James T. With him on the brief were Jay L. With him on the brief were David W. Explaining that Iroquois had failed to carry the burden of proving that the costs were prudently incurred. Iroquois says the orders were grounded in an impermissible presumption of non recoverability and asks us to set them aside. Were also undertaken by the U.S. While the various inves tigations were still under way. Hearings on these reserved issues were held before an administrative law judge. Who determined that the legal costs were not unrecoverable per se. Observed that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-5050.html">CIENEGA GARDENS V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiffs appellants.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief were <u>Everett C. Argued for defendant appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief was <u>David M. Director.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Of counsel on the brief were <u>Carole W. Rental rates were held below market rates.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>On exiting the programs. The trial court granted summary judgment solely on the basis of that decision.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>This appeal is. We conclude a property right vested in the Owners that was temporarily taken.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>We also conclude that there is no reason this taking is not. Compensable under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>We further hold with respect to at least the subset of Owners for whom there is a well developed record before us. That they are entitled to ". Mso bidi language:AR SA'>[3]</span></span><![endif]></span></span></a><span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>This appeal is one in a series of proceedings. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199802/96-1497a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Harrison were on the briefs. Wood were on the briefs. Were on the brief. Cheatham III were on the brief for intervenor Natural Gas Supply Association. Was on the brief for intervenor National Mining Association. Were on the brief for amici curiae New York. We invalidated the first set of these emission limits as exceed ing EPA's statutory authority.2 We are now presented with a challenge by a number of electric utilities and industry groups 3 to the next group of nitrogen oxides emission limits promulgated under the Act: a more stringent revision of the first set of emission limits and a new set of emission limits for a second group of boilers. Was Title IV. Which was designed to reduce the adverse effects of acid deposition (more com monly known as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199802/95-1402a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief for the petitioner. Assistant Attorney General at the time the brief was filed. Were on brief for the respondents. Were on brief for the intervenors. This court vacated the orders and remanded for further proceedings after petitions for review were filed.* * Cajun Elec. The Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (Director) made a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199801/96-1268a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Galeota and Jan Amundson were on brief. Were on brief. A damage 1 A </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199711/96-1096a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were James R. On the brief were Lois J. With him on the brief was Sarah Chasis. Were on the brief for amici curiae State of New Mexico. Natural resource damages resulting from oil spills were assessed pursuant to the Com prehensive Environmental Response. Natural resource damage assessments made by a trustee in accordance with those regulations </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992459.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Concluding that these State parties were indispensable parties under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19. Are subject to review by State public service commissions and thereafter. The parties found themselves in a dispute over whether Bell Atlantic had to pay reciprocal compensation for its subscribers' telephone calls made to Internet Service Providers ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-5088.html">APPOLO FUELS V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Of counsel was <u>Keith A. Argued for defendant appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief were <u>Thomas L. Mso bidi language:AR SA'>[1]</span> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-3816.html">MANLEY V. DEPT. OF AIR FORCE<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982722.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Bennett told Shipp she was covered for everything except theft and liability arising out of the drunk driving of a patron. Bennett and Shipp were not sent a copy of the binder. Robert Morris was injured at the Tavern when he was assaulted by another patron with a pool cue. Shipp asked Bennett whether she would have any problems with her insurance coverage. Bennett told her the insurance was effective as of the date she made her down payment. The policy prepared by Mountaineer contained the following assault and battery exclusion: It is agreed and understood that this insurance does not apply to bodily injury or property damage arising out of assault and battery or any act or omission in connection with the prevention or suppression of such acts. A copy of the policy was sent to Bennett on June 10. Shipp testified that she never received a copy of the policy and was not otherwise informed of the assault and battery exclusion. After she was served with the complaint. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-5121.html">WELLS FARGO BANK V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981804.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court found that the residents had failed to state a claim under the Fair Housing Act and that the rest of their claims were time barred. Appellants seek to derail this highway construction project years after the original siting decision was made. Most of their claims are 3 now stale. There is one exception: We reinstate as timely appellants' challenge to the agencies' decision not to prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement in 1995. We also hold that appellants' Title VI and section 1985 claims against the federal defendants are barred by sovereign immunity. Route 50 is the principal latitudinal artery spanning Maryland's eastern peninsula. Their remedy of choice was to construct a bypass around the City. In order to receive federal funding for the Bypass the Maryland State Highway Administration (SHA) was required to follow the approval process established under the Federal Aid Highway Act (FAHA). Although the details of this process have evolved since 1975. Its essential mandates have remained constant. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981014.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. I. Appellants are real estate developers who own three contiguous lots. Among the issues raised were the travel plaza's impact on wetlands and traffic congestion. Commissioner Oscar Schulz was allegedly overheard to say that the Commission would defeat the travel plaza by refusing approval for sewer services. Commissioner Schulz allegedly explained that his opposition to the proposal was based on his fear that it would hurt business at his nearby restaurant. The County's Planning and Zoning Department informed Appellants that their proposal was denied. Appellants also alleged that the County's refusal to allow the proposed development was barred by the doctrine of zoning estoppel. 1 Appellants appealed that decision to the Circuit Court for Queen Anne's County. 3 The Commissioners filed a motion for abstention. Which was ultimately converted to a motion for summary judgment. Both parties were apparently surprised by the Supreme Court's recent decision in Quackenbush v. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-5055.html">DEL-RIO DRILLING V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972059.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Provide bottled water to anyone in this area whose groundwater fails to meet these standards until the groundwater is found to be without contaminants. Trinity's land is composed of a top layer of saprolite a soft. The migratory path for water in the lower aquifer is. Although there is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971987.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. I. Immanuel was hired by Wyoming Concrete on June 14. Immanuel was pouring cement for customer John Mahetta. Telling the customer that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971593.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The courts have struggled to interpret and refine the enforcement and liability scheme laid out by the Act. Journal or wheel bearings are used on railroad cars to hold lubricating oil against the axle to reduce friction. They are comprised of a lead lining ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971554.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. FACTS Dilmar is a petroleum distributor headquartered in Latta. Federated is an insurance company which marketed specialized pollution liability insurance to companies in the petroleum industry. Is the policy at issue in the present litigation. The policy was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971246.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Arguing that the district court abused its discretion by imposing what Plaintiffs assert was an inadequate penalty. That Plaintiffs lacked standing to institute this action because they suffered no injury in fact and that this suit should have been barred because the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) diligently prosecuted a prior action regarding the same violations. We conclude that this action is now moot. P. 21. 2 Section 1365(b)(1)(B) provides that a citizen suit under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act may not be commenced when the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/961148.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Senior Circuit Judge: This is an appeal by Beazer Materials and Services. I. The Superfund site at issue is made up of two adjoining tracts of land on or near the Ashley River in Charleston. A 45 acre tract (the Koppers property) was owned from 1930 to 1977 by the Koppers Co. Of which Beazer is the corporate successor. The other tract of 57 acres (the Dent property) was owned from 1921 to 1963 by the American Agricultural Chemical Co. of Connecticut. This tract was bought in two parcels by George Dent in 1983 and 1986. Was thereafter owned and used for various purposes by two Dent enterprises. Specifically offending chemical constituents ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/961148.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Section 1 the status is changed from </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/951871.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Next door was the Alpine Forrest Mobile Home Park. There was a flurry of regulatory interest in the old and often shoddy underground storage tanks used by gasoline stations. The leak was promptly reported to state authorities. A faulty pipe was found and quickly repaired. Lou Frasco was Urban Assets' founder and prime mover. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021062.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Which is operated by the Piedmont Triad Airport Authority (the Airport Authority). Although the EIS was not perfect. We hold that it was sufficient. 500 multi family homes are within a five mile radius of the Airport. Various expansion plans have been considered over the years. Solicited expansion proposals from airports in the Carolinas that were interested in accommodating a new FedEx mid Atlantic cargo hub. After PTIA was selected. FAA approval is necessary to expand the Airport and to make the project eligible for federal funding. One of the primary purposes of an EIS is to consider alternatives to the proposed project. The agency eliminated most of the alternative sites and configurations because they did not meet the requirements that the hub be located at PTIA and that the airport have two parallel. The five off site alternatives were eliminated at this first stage mainly because they were not at the PTIA location. Five of the ten on site alternative configurations were also eliminated. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011931.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because TCP was not deprived of a property interest without due process of law. Because the County's actions were rationally related to a legitimate state interest. Leonard Jordan also informed the County Planner that TCP was applying to the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A95F733B757E056888257020006EA07B/$file/0415031.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A91DA5B24858ECC588256D3D006F6C71/$file/0116683.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This appeal involves a contract dispute over who is responsible for cleaning up pollution beneath a gas station. It was not clear whether Unocal or Herbst was at fault. As a precursor to settlement talks over who was responsible for cleaning up the land. INC. for Herbst on the grounds that the waiver agreement was invalid under Nevada law for lack of consideration. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A90A0C1AFD62934788256B9C007DCF5F/$file/9836233.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Columbia Plywood's continued discharge of pollutants into the Klamath River in Oregon was unlawful. Which alleged that Columbia Plywood's NPDES permit was invalid due to Columbia Plywood's failure to file a timely renewal application. Although the permit renewal request was tardy. It alleged that the 5703 permit renewal was invalid because DEQ lacked authority to renew NPDES permits. The district court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over these two claims because they were not properly raised in ONRC's 60 day citizen suit notice.1 See 33 U.S.C. § 1365(b). Whether ONRC had to show nonetheless that it was prejudiced by DEQ's action in accepting the untimely renewal application. We have received supplemental briefing from the parties as to the effect of that decision. That holding is not challenged in this appeal. 5704 the NPDES permit program. At the time this lawsuit was filed in 1997. Specifically asserting that the permit was invalid because Columbia Plywood had not applied to renew it within 180 days of its expiration date. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B09FA7717F18D78588256AF50001E5AF/$file/9915614.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Insurers allege that MERLO is preempted by the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response. Health & Safety ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B2CF09CA7F09ED1988256B840002251D/$file/9935254.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Both ONRC and the defendants moved for summary judgment on ONRC's claims that the EIS and EA were inadequate under NEPA. It found that the EA adequately addressed the impact that the timber sales would have on the spread of the fungus to the Cedar. We hold that the challenge to the EIS was ripe. That the EIS is inadequate under NEPA. We also hold that the EA is inadequate under NEPA. It ensures that the agency will inform the public that it has indeed considered environmental concerns in its decisionmaking process. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B8A530287D28BB0E88256E5A00707AA5/$file/0055621.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This is the third appeal by Defendant Southwest Marine. Were consolidated and earlier heard by this court. While the consolidated appeal was pending. Work is conducted at its five piers and two floating dry docks. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BF7AED3870353A3E88256C8D00576B6C/$file/0135472.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> CV 01 00010 EJL *Ann Veneman is substituted for her predecessor. P. 43(c)(2). **Dale Bosworth is substituted for his predecessor. We have received amicus briefs from: Washington Legal Foundation and United States Senators Larry E. VENEMAN that the Roadless Rule was promulgated without proper process and that it is invalid. An appeal was taken in both cases by intervenors. We consolidated the appeals and have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). That plaintiffs have standing to challenge the Roadless Rule. The co plaintiffs joined with the Kootenai Tribe are: the BlueRibbon Coalition. There are now 58.5 million acres of inventoried roadless areas in the National Forest System. 2.8 million acres of roadless areas have been developed by the Forest Service. Against the Forest Service on This is perhaps reminiscent of George Orwell's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8F7826839DF24B0F882571840055B8E8/$file/0455084.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on the briefs. Were on the brief. 6132 CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY v. Were on the brief. The stickleback is found chiefly in parts of Santa Barbara. The stickleback prefers to make its nest where there is ample vegetation and a gentle flow of water. The rate of water flow is a key factor in preferred stickleback habitat. Which concluded that the project was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8D9B522DE32A804C88256B3B0000C4AB/$file/9915614.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2001 is amended as follows: 1) The opinion's list of counsel for the defendantsappellees. The first three sentences of the first full paragraph should be replaced by the following: 235 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/89905E37452D8DDD88256E5A00707D2E/$file/9915614.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Insurers allege that MERLO is preempted by the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response. Health & Safety ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D415F1D6386BB99B88256D8F0073C5C5/$file/0216009.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court held it did not have jurisdiction over this action because (i) Citizens failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability that the Rule threatened their concrete interests as their complaint was directed to neither a site specific project nor a particular forest plan. (ii) Citizens failed to show any imminent injury and thus their claims are not ripe. Reverse and remand to the district court to determine whether injunctive relief is appropriate. Historical Overview Background National forests and grasslands are managed by the United States Forest Service. An agency within the United States Appellants are Citizens for Better Forestry. It is this highest tier type of regulation (hereinafter referred to as a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D595775D7821C51A88256E55007CA045/$file/0136133.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Cherry Point Marine Terminal Cherry Point is an approximately ten mile stretch of coastline located in the Strait of Georgia in northeast Puget Sound. The Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO) was the original party to this suit. Physical adjustments enabled the southern platform both to unload crude oil and to load refined product so that the dock could function as it would have with both platforms. BP sought to have the 1969 permit reopened in 1977 so that it could complete the original design of the pier by building the northern platform. Before the permit was issued. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D971CE9443AF2981882571B50058B9BA/$file/0471432.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are obligated before reaching the merits of NIRS's NEPA challenge to determine whether NIRS has standing to bring its complaint in federal court. NRC is authorized to regulate the use and pos 8210 NUCLEAR INFORMATION AND RESOURCE SERVICE v. DOT is authorized to designate material as hazardous and to prescribe regulations for the safe transportation of such material. 49 U.S.C. §§ 5103(a). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5E8290FB85CEDC2688256FBA0006B0A9/$file/0136133.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Appearing at 361 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2004) is amended as follows: OCEAN ADVOCATES v. The New platform facilitates an increase in tanker traffic and is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/58807F3D4237981088256C4B007B3701/$file/9915614.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The petitions for rehearing en banc were circulated to the full court and no judge requested a vote on the petitions. Lodi's motion for judicial notice in support of its petition for rehearing is GRANTED. The petitions for rehearing and rehearing en banc are DENIED. 2002 and reported at 2002 WL 1792612 is hereby amended as follows: At page *17. That MERLO's provisions dealing with cleanup procedures are preempted by CERCLA only to the extent that they permit Lodi to order use of procedures more stringent than the NCP </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/551B0F46B06C491A882571A00054F840/$file/0535153.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Where hazardous substances disposed of by Teck have come to be located. We decide today whether a citizen suit based on Teck's alleged non compliance with the Order is a domestic or an extraterritorial application of the Comprehensive Environmental Response. We address Teck's argument that it is not liable for having </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0361p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2000* This decision was originally issued as an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug99/98-6146.man.html">AM. IRON AND STEEL INST. V. OSHA (8/3/1999, NO. 98-6146)<BR></A><BR> The separate challenges are brought by the American Iron and Steel Institute ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992443.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Line 31 the spelling of Justice Frankfurter's name is corrected. Line 3 the citation to Coeur d'Alene Tribe is corrected to read </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200517164.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That is the question. Are the Alabama sturgeon and the shovelnose sturgeon separate species? Which one observer has noted </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb2002/00-15703.opn.html">MICCOSUKEE TRIBE V. S. FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DIST. (2/1/2002, NO. 00-15703)<BR></A><BR> The suit alleges that the Water District was violating the Clean Water Act by discharging pollutants from the S 9 pump station into Water Management District 3A without a national pollution discharge elimination system ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FE08C52549DC416D88256E0F0077C817/$file/0250492.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Arguing that the court improperly ordered restitution for dismissed counts and that the court should have made forfeited funds available for restitution. We also hold that the district court was not required to attempt to transfer forfeited funds to Bright's victims. (3) participating nurses would have to sell nothing. (4) the companies were conducting a medically supervised clinical trial. Bright would send letters to the nurses advising them that they would have UNITED STATES v. BRIGHT 91 to post signs soliciting customers for a weight loss product that Bright was selling. None of the five companies was conducting a medically supervised clinical trial. Bright was indicted on 14 counts of mail fraud and nine counts of money laundering. Because the deduction for the completed surveys was not enough to bring the victim loss below $500. Was informed that they were not available for restitution. If these funds were deducted. The total amount of loss will not fall below $500. 000 and thus Bright's offense level will not change unless we conclude that the district court erred in refusing to make each one of the three proposed deductions. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/01/052064P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Site was significantly contaminated by arsenic during the Reade Era. Habco was first jointly owned by Donald Boatright and Donald Horne until 1976 and then owned principally by Donald Horne thereafter. Habco's plant manager was Donald Horne's brother. Victor was responsible for implementing Donald's decisions but was not authorized to make decisions involving substantial amounts of money absent Donald's approval. Spills of both granular and liquid chemicals that periodically occurred were not properly collected or disposed. Donald also authorized an in ground vat 5 to be drained and backfilled rather than removed because filling it in was cheaper. He was fearful of what lay beneath it if it were removed. The company settled a lawsuit brought by a neighboring green house alleging that its plants were damaged by herbicide contamination caused by Habco. Donald Horne was not a stockholder or a director of Habco Loram. Donald Horne was the principal stockholder in Habco with approximately 93% of its stock. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb99/97-5418.man.html">FLORIDA PARAPLEGIC ASS'N V. MICCOSUKEE TRIBE OF INDIANS OF FLA. (2/3/1999, NO. 97-5418)<BR></A><BR> 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/02/951913U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Holding the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because under CERCLA citizen suits challenging removal actions are precluded until after the cleanup is completed. Barred plaintiffs' suit until after the remedial action was completed. That plaintiffs' claims were barred by res judicata because plaintiffs had not appealed the district court's denial of their motion to amend to present the state law claims in APC I. Alleging APC II was filed only for the improper purpose of harassing VSC and the claims were legally and factually frivolous in light of the holding in APC I. That plaintiffs' counsel were objectively reasonable in believing this evidence supported their claims in APC II. The district court concluded that the legal arguments were not specious. Because plaintiffs could have reasonably believed (1) the state court could have decided the state law claims after the federal court determined it lacked jurisdiction over the federal claims. (2) there were no res judicata impediments. The district court also concluded APC II was not filed for an improper purpose. 3 The district court must apply an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan96/94-4093.man.html">DIETRICH V. KEY BANK<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Dietrich v. 46 U.S.C.A. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C2C93C6130624C3C88256DF800713B84/$file/0216999.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> By the time it was extinguished in September. A </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200411658.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That § 922(d) is an unconstitutional exercise of Congress' commerce power. Because sufficient evidence was presented at trial for the jury to conclude that Peters knowingly sold a firearm and ammunition to a convicted felon. Peters was a federally licensed firearms dealer from 1994 until his license expired in April 2001. ATF Agent Nick Cheremeta had seen Peters at gun shows and knew that he was no longer a licensed firearms dealer. He employed a confidential informant to determine whether Peters was still selling guns out of his store. 2 The confidential informant. Was born Gary Bruce Wilson and. John was convicted of one count of felony aggravated assault in the Superior Court of Tattnall County. John was given his new name and assigned a new social security number. John's first contact with Peters was on April 11. This is all my personal stuff. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/06/951190P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> BACKGROUND Toney is a dog dealer who resides in Iowa and does business in Iowa. Who had registered with and was licensed On or about May 20. Owners of dogs who believed that their pets may have been stolen and sold to research laboratories as well as Toney and another USDA licensed dog dealer. WCCO's report stated that: So these animals that are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8EA7421D54702E4F88256C950062ABA0/$file/0016355.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: at slip Opinion page 6. The petition for rehearing and for rehearing en banc is denied. The district court (1) found that the Ordinances were preempted by the Home Owners' Loan Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991115.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Farms' claim opposing the preliminary injunction as invalid is moot. The MAG 4 is home to 4. Waste from the sows is released into a lagoon. The MAG 4 is operated under a North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july96/93-5245.man_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july97/95-4099.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. FERN<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. The Monte Carlo was insured for up to two million dollars under a fire loss policy the Lexington Insurance Company issued. Contracted with Fern to determine whether the Monte Carlo's conference room and suites were contaminated with asbestos as a result of the fire. Fern then orchestrated a fraudulent scheme to (1) convince Lexington that the Monte Carlo was contaminated thoroughly with asbestos. Neither Fern nor AER was licensed to conduct asbestos abatement or removal work. Was responsible for the asbestos abatement project at the Monte Carlo. Was the on site supervisor.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200214294.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The work to be accomplished under the permit was for the admitted purpose of developing the property commercially. That is. Is whether constitutional due process was due. We find that substantive due process concerns are not implicated by the actions of the City in this case. Are essentially undisputed. This property is zoned for residential use and has been so zoned since Greenbriar purchased the property in 1990. Greenbriar has repeatedly contended that the property is not suitable for residential use and has used all available avenues to attempt to convince the City to re zone the property for commercial activity. Greenbriar applied for and was denied re zoning of the property for use as an office development. It is uncontested that Greenbriar's entire purpose for obtaining the Permit was to prepare for the eventuality of the property being re zoned for commercial use. Though the Permit was issued for the clearing of a commercial site. This request was denied yet again in October 1999. It is uncontested that. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991041.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We do not address the district court's rulings on the contribution claims because they have been rendered moot by the 2 entry of a consent decree resolving the liability of Carroll and CCO to the United States. Which is located in Wilmington. (Although it is occasionally awkward. Lead is a hazardous substance subject to cleanup under CERCLA. The EPA has also discovered that some of the piping that runs throughout the property is lead contaminated. There is no evidence in the record of any subsequent party using or processing lead at the property. Any material remaining in the other tanks was either sold to the new operator of the 3 property or subsequently transferred to another Axel controlled facility. Explaining that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200112164.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Filed a complaint in federal district court alleging that the County was taking endangered sea turtles in violation of the ESA. (2) the County's ordinance restricting artificial beachfront lighting was ineffective in preventing takes. Was reasonably likely to result in future takes of sea turtles. That the County was not responsible for takes by its municipalities. The district court found that beach driving was reasonably likely to result in future taking of sea turtles. The district court held that both types of takes were covered by the ITP. Arguing that their suit was the catalyst for improved protection of sea turtles. Arguing that the Turtles' suit did not have a catalytic effect on the County's ITP application.2 With respect to the beach lighting claim. That enactment of County Ordinances 99 12 and 99 13 was Although the ITP permitted incidental takes. Presumably because the ITP carefully delimited the scope of permissible takes and set forth fifteen categories of measures the County was required to undertake to minimize and mitigate such takes. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june2000/98-8899.ma3.html">HARRIS V. GARNER (6/27/2000, NO. 98-8899)<BR></A><BR> We granted rehearing en banc in this case to decide whether the provision applies to lawsuits that are filed while the plaintiff is a confined prisoner but which are not decided until after he is released from confinement. BACKGROUND</STRONG></CENTER> </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200015703.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The suit alleges that the Water District was violating the Clean Water Act by discharging pollutants from the S 9 pump station into Water Management District 3A without a national pollution discharge elimination system ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/984150.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Kerry Ellis and Seawitch Salvage (collectively Ellis) were found guilty of violating the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts by improperly removing and disposing of asbestos during the breaking of Navy surplus vessels. Failing to notify the appropriate environmental agency that asbestos removal was occurring at the site. Ellis was convicted of making a false statement to the Department of Defense regarding the extent of asbestos removal from a ship. Ellis challenges these convictions arguing: the indictment was constructively amended when the judge instructed the jury on too broad a definition of friable asbestos. Defense counsel was ineffective. I. Kerry Ellis was owner and president of Seawitch Salvage. The scrap was then sold to interested parties. Before the ships were sold. EPA and FBI agents executed a 1 Asbestos handling is regulated under the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) contained in 40 C.F.R. part 61. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DFB00295C1BA4BE588256C960001A700/$file/0130057.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> BACKGROUND TSI is an Alaska corporation that performs asbestosremediation services. The mill had closed in 1993 and was scheduled for demolition. The powerhouse was a large structure. The powerhouse was in a state of disrepair. There were holes of all sizes in the walls and ceiling. TSI's primary contractual responsibility was to remove asbestos insulation on the pipes. The project was stopped. One of the EPA's concerns was that TSI was washing wastewater. Sent a letter to the EPA explaining how TSI was complying with regulatory requirements. The letter stated that it was submitted for settlement purposes. Enclosed with the letter was a statement. Asserting that TSI was not washing wastewater into the powerhouse drains. 6 UNITED STATES v. Before the powerhouse was demolished. The EPA contacted Wade and asked him to take another look at one of the pipes in the powerhouse from which TSI was to have removed asbestos. Stemming from allegations that Rushing solicited employees to sign the false statement that TSI was not washing wastewater into Silver Bay. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982673.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Thirty two of the units were known as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199912049.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Five district court judges have presided over the case since its inception. Two different circuit courts of appeals have been asked to review one of their decisions.1 In this fifth appeal. We agree with the district court that the answer is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Oct2004/Oct13/03-10528.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. 1 * A list of acronyms used in this opinion is appended. A direct appeal from two orders of the FAA brought by Davis Mountains Trans Pecos Heritage Association in which the Welch parties have intervened. 2 3 prepared by the Air Force and adopted by the FAA does not satisfy NEPA and therefore remand to the agencies to prepare a supplemental EIS in accordance with this opinion. I. Background The basis of petitioners' complaints is the RBTI. The MTR is a flight corridor where pilots can practice lowaltitude navigation and maneuvers. Petitioners are Davis Mountains Trans Pecos Heritage Association (DMTPHA). A nonprofit corporation whose members are farmers. We have jurisdiction to review the FAA's approvals under 49 U.S.C. § 46110(a). We will not address intervenors' argument that the FAA failed to adequately consider the effects of the RBTI on Lubbock. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/01/961001P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Various aspects of this litigation have been pending in federal court since 1984. With which the defendants were required to comply in the installation and operation of the thermal treatment unit at the Times Beach site. Including a Thermal Treatment The decree and its Workplan that described how the remedial work was to be performed. Were incorporated by reference into the Consent Decree. workplans contemplated that the Syntex defendants would apply for a Hazardous Waste Management Permit from the EPA and the State of Missouri to construct and operate the incinerator. A permit application was submitted on July 30. A draft EPA/Missouri Hazardous Waste Management Facility Permit was issued on December 16. This Draft Permit proposed a formula for establishing the allowable quantity of dioxin and metals emissions necessary to ensure that these emissions did not exceed health based standards established by law. of This formula was based upon a site specific Times Beach Risk particular incineration project. The Permit and the Risk Assessment analyzing risks conservatively projected for the initial phase this Assessment concluded that the project could be conducted safely so long as less than approximately one nanogram of dioxin per dry standard cubic meter of air ( 1 ng/m3 ) was emitted from the incinerator at any time. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/01/961204P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which is owned by Imperial. He could have constructed. He could have had the waste treated at a plant. The on site facility would have In addition. Potentially malodorous. the facility would have discharged the treated waste into a so called </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19988899.OP2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We granted rehearing en banc in this case to decide whether the provision applies to lawsuits that are filed while the plaintiff is a confined prisoner but which are not decided until after he is released from confinement. I. BACKGROUND The factual and legal background of this case is set forth in some detail in the panel opinion. We will not repeat it at length here. All eleven of them were confined in the prison when the lawsuit was filed. Which is the part that concerns this issue. The lawsuit was filed on March 10. Judgment was entered on June 24. The six plaintiffs who were released from confinement during that interval are Danny Chadwick. 190 F.3d at 1283.The other five plaintiffs were still confined when judgment was entered in the district court but. Some of them have been released since then. All eleven of the plaintiffs are jointly represented in this appeal. Their counsel does not argue that any of those who were released after the date of the district court's judgment are. Our references hereafter to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19988899.MA3.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We granted rehearing en banc in this case to decide whether the provision applies to lawsuits that are filed while the plaintiff is a confined prisoner but which are not decided until after he is released from confinement. I. BACKGROUND The factual and legal background of this case is set forth in some detail in the panel opinion. We will not repeat it at length here. All eleven of them were confined in the prison when the lawsuit was filed. Which is the part that concerns this issue. Which is with the words of the statutory provision. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19985515.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sitting by designation. * Before this court are two consolidated appeals arising from the Pregnancy Discrimination Act case brought by Plaintiff Appellee United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19985515.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Before this court are two consolidated appeals arising from the Pregnancy Discrimination Act case brought by Plaintiff Appellee United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19972664.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We also conclude that the damages award to Hardaway is not in error. A detailed review of the facts is necessary to understand our holding. Construction was to proceed on a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19972664.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We also conclude that the damages award to Hardaway is not in error. A detailed review of the facts is necessary to understand our holding. Construction was to proceed on a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19968792.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which Defendant AT&T is listed as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19968792.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> As potentially liable defendants.3 Defendant AT&T is listed as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/06/962120P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> After finding that both sets of plaintiffs have standing. We hold that the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19964052.OP2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The petition for panel rehearing is otherwise denied. Herbert Johnson is a black male and former employee of the City of Fort Lauderdale Fire Department. This count is not at issue on this appeal. 2 1 harassment. Recognizing that its order </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19964052.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Herbert Johnson is a black male and former employee of the City of Fort Lauderdale Fire Department. This count is not at issue on this appeal. 1 * by a municipality and its employees.2 The district court denied the motion. Recognizing that its order </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19964052.MA2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The petition for panel rehearing is otherwise denied. Herbert Johnson is a black male and former employee of the City of Fort Lauderdale Fire Department. Recognizing that its order </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982256.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Holding that sidecasting in a jurisdictional wetland is the discharge of a pollutant under the Clean Water Act. Subject to the condition that it was suitable for developing a small residential subdivision. Because the groundwater elevations were unacceptably high at the disposal sites proposed by Deaton and his consultant. The department commented that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982229.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This is a suit brought by Russ and Lee Pye. The Pyes own adjoining land to the land on which the road crossing is constructed. Their land also adjoins what is known as Tract M of the Sheppard Tract on which an eighteenth century plantation house connected to the Hayne family is situated and is near to. The cemetery itself adjoins the Pyes' land and is probably partly on the Pyes' land. The old plantation house is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. As is the African American cemetery. We are of opinion such dismissal was error. Which is owned by the County and open to private use only with County permission. A .23 acre segment of the road is covered by waters of the United States. The Pyes' property is adjacent to Area M and contains part of an historic African American cemetery. Both the plantation home site and that of the cemetery have been declared eligible for entry on the National Register of Historic Places. Other adjacent property are all part of a larger area known as Encampment Plantation. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/41EE943C82ABBBA688256DA2005A8DC9/$file/0215826o.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended. The parties were referred to the Ninth Circuit Mediation Program to explore a settlement. The parties were referred to the Ninth Circuit Mediation Program to explore a settlement. The parties's joint motion to enter the attached stipulated consent decree is GRANTED. Submission of this case is deferred pending further order of this court. Concurring: Judge Kleinfeld's dissent to the proposed consent decree is well reasoned and quite thorough. The issues he raises are significant and should be considered seriously by the parties as they continue their negotiations. There is certainly no assurance how the court would rule on the questions of first impression presented here nor is there any reason to believe that the Court would approve a final resolution that appeared on its face to be unfair or collusive or that failed to consider input from interested parties. EPA 13611 In the present case however the Court referred the parties to mediation and the parties have gone to great efforts to resolve the issues without further litigation. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-5149.html">AVENAL V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar95/93-4456.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. HALL<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Parks of the United States Customs Service began investigating allegations that Bet Air was supplying restricted military parts to Iran. No signs indicated that the road was private. He did not know he was on private property. The dumpster was readily accessible to the public. One of the reconstructed shredded documents was titled </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19954099.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Monte Carlo was insured for up to two million dollars under a fire loss policy the Lexington Insurance Company issued. Contracted with Fern to determine whether the Monte Carlo's conference room and suites were contaminated with asbestos as a result of the fire. Fern then orchestrated a fraudulent scheme to (1) convince Lexington that the Monte Carlo was contaminated thoroughly with asbestos. Neither Fern nor AER was licensed to conduct asbestos abatement or removal work. Was responsible for the asbestos abatement project at the Monte Carlo. That Judy Joyner Jerry Joyner's sister in law and the president of Action Systems was the on site supervisor.2 The Ten Day Notice also contained Judy Joyner's forged signature on the notice lines indicating that the information on the notice was correct and that an appropriately trained individual would be on site at the Monte Specifically. The third notice is slightly different from the first two notices and is captioned </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19954099.OP2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is withdrawn. The following opinion is substituted in its stead. The Monte Carlo was insured for up to two million dollars under a fire loss policy the Lexington Insurance Company issued. Contracted with Fern to determine whether the Monte Carlo's conference room and suites were contaminated with asbestos as a result of the fire. Fern then orchestrated a fraudulent scheme to (1) convince Lexington that the Monte Carlo was contaminated thoroughly with asbestos. Neither Fern nor AER was licensed to conduct asbestos abatement or removal work. Was responsible for the asbestos abatement project at the Monte Carlo. That Judy Joyner Jerry Joyner's sister in law and the president of Action Systems was the on site supervisor.2 The Ten Day Notice also contained Judy Joyner's forged signature on the notice lines indicating Specifically. The third notice is slightly different from the first two notices and is captioned </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19954099.MA2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is withdrawn. The following opinion is substituted in its stead. The Monte Carlo was insured for up to two million dollars under a fire loss policy the Lexington Insurance Company issued. Contracted with Fern to determine whether the Monte Carlo's conference room and suites were contaminated with asbestos as a result of the fire. Fern then orchestrated a fraudulent scheme to (1) convince Lexington that the Monte Carlo was contaminated thoroughly with asbestos. Neither Fern nor AER was licensed to conduct asbestos abatement or removal work. Was responsible for the asbestos abatement project at the Monte Carlo. That Judy Joyner Jerry Joyner's sister in law and the president of Action Systems was the on site supervisor.2 The Ten Day Notice also contained Judy Joyner's forged signature on the notice lines indicating that the information on the notice was correct and that an appropriately trained individual would be on site at the Monte Carlo during the asbestos abatement project.3 The first and third Ten Day Notices also contain references to Judy Joyner's Florida asbestos removal license number. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Oct2004/Oct12/03-10506.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. 1 * A list of acronyms used in this opinion is appended. A direct appeal from two orders of the FAA brought by Davis Mountains Trans Pecos Heritage Association in which the Welch parties have intervened. 2 3 prepared by the Air Force and adopted by the FAA does not satisfy NEPA and therefore remand to the agencies to prepare a supplemental EIS in accordance with this opinion. I. Background The basis of petitioners' complaints is the RBTI. The MTR is a flight corridor where pilots can practice lowaltitude navigation and maneuvers. Petitioners are Davis Mountains Trans Pecos Heritage Association (DMTPHA). A nonprofit corporation whose members are farmers. We have jurisdiction to review the FAA's approvals under 49 U.S.C. § 46110(a). We will not address intervenors' argument that the FAA failed to adequately consider the effects of the RBTI on Lubbock. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19952799.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> These consolidated appeals raise the following issues: (1) whether plaintiff's § 1983 claim was so </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19952799.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> These consolidated appeals raise the following issues: (1) whether plaintiff's § 1983 claim was so </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/89A7E2DFD9B04377882571860077DDDF/$file/0371439o.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc. The request for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc is DENIED. Are filed concurrently herewith. The decision is DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE v. This is precisely the kind of case we should take en banc to set our own house in order. There is no dispute that its proposal met all nine criteria listed in the CWA. Was worried that the transfer might affect endangered species. The matter was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19948485.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2 were convicted pursuant to a 133 count indictment charging them with various offenses arising out of the operation of the concessions at the Atlanta Hartsfield International Airport. Ira Jackson was the first black person elected to the Atlanta City Council and served from 1970 to 1990. Will be referred to herein as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19946684.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is known as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19944561.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. BACKGROUND The factual background and procedural history of this case have already been well documented in the opinions of the ALJ and the Commission. JCC was a registered futures commission merchant as required by 7 U.S.C. §§ 6d and 6f. The term </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19944067.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Senior Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from the Secretary of Labor's determination that petitioner violated the employee protection provisions of the Energy Reorganization Act. Petitioner Bechtel Construction Company (Bechtel) claims that the Secretary of Labor's finding that Bechtel discharged one of its employees for engaging in whistleblower activities is not supported by substantial evidence. Petitioner further claims that the employee's conduct was not protected activity as a matter of law. I. Bechtel is a contractor at the Turkey Point Nuclear Power Honorable Ralph B. Turkey Point is owned and operated by the Florida Power and Light Company (FPL). Which is licensed to operate the facility by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The facility is divided into two areas. Approximately every 18 months the nuclear units at Turkey Point are shut down for refueling. These periods are called refueling outages. The RCA is supervised and controlled pursuant to NRC requirements and handling of radiation contaminated guidelines and regulations. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981689.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Who was installing a pier in the James River. The ALJ first reasoned that Midkiff had introduced evidence that he had suffered a harm that could have been caused by a work related incident. As was necessary to invoke the presumption of causation in section 20(a) of the LHWCA. He then acknowledged that McLean had introduced no rebutting evidence regarding a subsequent intervening cause which was sufficient to overcome the presumption. He proceeded to conclude that Midkiff failed to demonstrate that his disability was the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981301.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is whether plaintiffs can use 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) to enforce their rights to overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The FLSA expressly recognizes and encourages such settlements: The Secretary is authorized to supervise the payment of the unpaid minimum wages or unpaid overtime compensation 3 owing to any employee or employees under . . . this title. The agreement of any employee to accept such payment shall upon payment in full constitute a waiver by such employee of any right he may have . . . to such unpaid minimum wages or unpaid overtime wages and an additional equal amount as liquidated damages. 29 U.S.C.A. § 216(c) (1998). The EMS workers signed a release containing the following language: Your acceptance of back wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act means that you have given up any right you may have to bring suit for such back wages under Section 16(b) of the Act. Do not sign this report unless you have actually received payment of the back wages due. Because </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may2000/98-5515.man.html">UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMM'N V. W&O, INC. (5/30/2000, NO. 98-5515)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-2249.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Snyder LLP</U> were on brief for appellants.</FONT> <P><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-2170.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Gaythwaite</U> were on brief. Were on brief. P.C.</U> were on brief. Were made in a civil rights action filed in May of 1998. The thrust of the complaint was that workers of Mexican descent. Were treated harshly because of their Mexican background. 29 U.S.C. § 1801 <U>et seq.</U> The complaint was filed by fourteen individuals. DeCoster and DeCoster Egg Farm.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1855.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Gibson and Piper Marbury Rudnick & Wolfe LLP were on brief. The group contends that the Agency's decision to grant the permit was arbitrary and capricious and in violation of the Executive Order on Environmental Justice. The permit was required under the Clean Air Act because the plant would be a major new stationary source of certain pollutants. PSD permits are designed to insure that covered pollutants emitted by new or modified sources do not exceed the allowable increments of additional air pollutants (the increments) or lead to the exceeding of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (the Standards) in areas that have been designated </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5DAC98590B57024488256E1C000513D9/$file/0255681.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Section 1983 remedies are available because the TCA does not contain a comprehensive remedial scheme. I. BACKGROUND Abrams is a Federal Communications Commission ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1412.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Varela Fernandez was on brief. Were on brief. It was bound for Japan. I The voyage of the Pacific Swan is part of a modern circumferential trade. Uranium from the United States is sent to Japan to fuel nuclear energy reactors. Which is turned into nuclear fuel (either RepU fuel. The waste is vitrified according to specifications that have been approved by French and Japanese governments and placed in casks that meet criteria set forth by the International Atomic Energy Agency in its Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material. Both the waste and the fuel are returned to Japan on board specially designed ships that meet the standards of the International Maritime Organization's Code for the Safe Carriage of Irradiated Nuclear Fuel. Even if they are not territorial waters. The case is not moot. Review of entry of summary judgment is de novo. The issues presented are ones of law and our review is plenary. Mayagezanos has refined its argument to a single attack: the federal courts have jurisdiction to consider this action under NEPA and the United States's failure to regulate the passage of such nuclear waste through its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) waters is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/03/963277P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Jurisdiction Jurisdiction in the district court was proper based upon 33 U.S.C. § 1365. Jurisdiction on appeal is proper based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The notice of appeal was timely filed pursuant to Rule 4(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Background ASARCO's lead refinery (hereinafter </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may2001/98-5404.man.html">EMPLOYERS INS. OF WAUSAU V. BRIGHT METAL SPECIALTIES, INC. (5/22/2001, NO. 98-5404)<BR></A><BR> That it is not bound by the arbitration provision in Bright's subcontract. Rogers concedes that it is bound by Bright's subcontract. Contends that Bright's claim is excluded from arbitration pursuant to an arbitration exception in the subcontract. We conclude that the district court's order was an appealable </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1453.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The dismissal of the claims against the municipal defendants was also proper. Rule 23(e) is inapplicable because the complaint was not voluntarily dismissed. Rule 23(c)(1) was not implicated. Simanonok was the only named class representative. Once his federal claims were dismissed. There was no need to resolve the class allegations. Then costs are awarded. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1036.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiff appellees (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972709.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Smithfield asserts that the district court erred in its finding that this suit was not (1) precluded by the Supreme Court's holding in Gwaltney of Smithfield. I. The facts of this case are undisputed and are comprehensively set out in the district court's published opinion. Both plants are located on the Pagan River. The wastewater discharged from these plants is treated in two of Smithfield's facilities. Treated wastewater was discharged from Outfall 001 into the Pagan River. Treated wastewater was discharged from Outfall 002 into the Pagan River. A. Smithfield's wastewater discharges contained numerous pollutants that were regulated under the CWA and thus. Permits are governed by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may95/94-6684.opa.html">TRM, INC. V. UNITED STATES<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>TRM. Except when cash is returned as change in a transaction in which coupons were accepted in payment for eligible food.... This is known as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may96/93-4634.ma2.html">MOTORCITY OF JACKSONVILLE V. SOUTHEAST BANK<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Motorcity of Jacksonville v. Southeast orally assured Motorcity that its personnel were experienced with floor plan financing and that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1976.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Gutkoski were on brief for appellants. Johnston were on brief for appellees. This is an appeal from a jury verdict of no liability in a medical malpractice case. Plaintiff appellant is Richard K. Defendants appellees are Benjamin Mahlab. We address only one of the three issues raised by appellant because it is dispositive. Excerpts from the letters were allowed in evidence. Were the parents of two children: Brian. Klonoski was born and raised in Connecticut. Klonoski was employed by Mary Hitchcock Memorial Hospital as a cardiologist. She was sent home in the afternoon. Klonoski's death she was delivered of a healthy baby girl. Klonoski was in San Diego at a medical meeting of cardiologists on Saturday. He was notified late Saturday of his wife's admission to the hospital. His wife was comatose and did not recognize him. PRETRIAL DISCOVERY As is usual in a well prepared medical malpractice case. As is also usual. The address to which her letters (the evidence in dispute) were sent. To the extent defendants can more persuasively support their assertion that such a list (or the names of particular people which would otherwise appear on such a list) is protected by the work product doctrine (i.e. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may97/96-2539.opa.html">PILKINGTON V. UNITED AIRLINES<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Pilkington v. Senior District Judge:<p> <p> Plaintiffs/appellants are nine non striking pilots for United Airlines ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-2371.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Howard were on brief for appellant. This is an appeal BOWNES. Cumberland was a debtor in possession in a Chapter 11 reorganization proceeding. The appellee is the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). It is the regulatory agency in charge of administering certain Florida environmental statutes including the maintenance of USTs for petroleum and petroleum products. As was that of the district court. Is de novo. Together 2 2 Cumberland does not claim that summary judgment was inappropriate. The relief sought is not a new hearing but summary judgment in its favor. There was an average of three tanks per location. Show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972556.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Co. is corrected to begin </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-2063.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for appellant Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Claiming that these Massachusetts state officers were violating the federal Endangered Species Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may97/96-4052.man.html">JOHNSON V. CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Johnson v. Circuit Judge:<p> <p> Herbert Johnson is a black male and former employee of the City of Fort Lauderdale Fire Department. Recognizing that its order </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1245.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Rodio was on brief for appellant. Powers with whom Marc DeSisto was on brief for appellee. Who had refused to continue a work assignment on a boat at a city pond due to his fear of capsizing and was subsequently terminated. BACKGROUND Marques was hired as a laborer by the city of East Providence in June 1993.1 On December 22. Marques was assigned to work at Jones Pond. Who is unable to swim. Was told by Gammell not to worry about it. Marques noticed that there were no life preservers in the boat. This life preserver was not forthcoming.2 Marques nevertheless performed the assignment. Told lead worker Robert Barlow ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov97/95-2799.man.html">WYKE V. POLK COUNTY SCH. BD.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Wyke v. These consolidated appeals raise the following issues: (1) whether plaintiff's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-2129.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is corrected as follows: Replace footnote 4. To read in its entirety as follows: Although several courts have applied an abuse of discretion standard in reviewing Younger abstention cases. Context is the determining factor. Where an attempt is made to apply the Younger doctrine under oddly configured circumstances. Appellate review is for abuse of that discretion. For purposes of what the Chaulk majority called the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1820.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Corey was on brief for Roy R. Phelan and Fitzhugh & Associates were on brief for Sun Company. Was on the property after the leak was discovered. Monitoring wells were installed and samples of groundwater were taken and analyzed. Whose name was given on the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1800.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Locke was on brief for appellant. Hoag & Eliot were on brief for appellees. The summary judgment record is particularly unhelpful to Henry because the district court ruled that he failed to comply with the local rule requiring the party opposing summary judgment to provide a concise statement of the material facts as to which there is a genuine issue to be tried. How his factual statement complies with the 2 2 requirement of a concise statement of the material facts as to which there is a genuine issue. Henry's factual statement was a general and complete background statement. Providing relevant facts whether or not they were disputed or material to the outcome. All the other plaintiffs (except Henry individually) were defaulted from this action in November 1991. The record is not completely clear as to what actions were taken by Henry personally. That is irrelevant to the disposition of this appeal. We will recite the facts as if Henry was the actor unless more specificity is required. 3 3 sometimes spilled on the ground during the monthly refilling of the PCE storage tank. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept2002/01-12164.opn.html">LOGGERHEAD TURTLE V. COUNTY COUNCIL (9/30/2002, NO. 01-12164)<BR></A><BR> Filed a complaint in federal district court alleging that the County was taking endangered sea turtles in violation of the ESA. (2) the County's ordinance restricting artificial beachfront lighting was ineffective in preventing takes. Was reasonably likely to result in future takes of sea turtles. </SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-9550.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Petitioner Lila Andersen is the surviving spouse of Harold Andersen. His COPD was a compensable form of pneumoconiosis arising out of his employment as a coal miner. The overriding issue before us is whether the Board erred in denying Mr. We give </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept95/94-4561.opa.html">JCC, INC. V. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMM'N<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>JCC. BACKGROUND<p> <p> The factual background and procedural history of this case have already been well documented in the opinions of the ALJ and the Commission. Is engaged in soliciting or in accepting orders (other than in a clerical capacity) for the purchase or sale of any commodity for future delivery on or subject to the rules of any contract market who does not accept any money. Or associated person is registered or exempt from registration in such capacity. Is not compensated on a per trade basis or which solely manages discretionary accounts pursuant to a power of attorney. Regardless of whether that commodity trading advisor is registered or exempt from registration in such capacity. Regardless of whether that commodity pool operator is registered or exempt from registration in such capacity.<p> <p> 17 C.F.R. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-2004.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Pearlson and Robert Quinn were on brief for appellant. Luongo and Jayne Conroy were on brief for appellee. Metropolitan never 1 MHI and Metropolitan were formed to privatize the functions previously performed by the Metropolitan Housing Assistance Program of the Massachusetts Executive Office of Communities and Development. 2 becomes a party to the lease. Metropolitan inspects the premises to insure that federal Housing Quality Standards are satisfied. Refrigerators are in working order. They simply note whether the paint is chipped or peeling. If no letter is on file. The landlord is told that one is required before the subsidy will be given. Many of which are based on its alleged failure to inspect adequately for lead paint before agreeing to subsidize the apartments. Ambiguities are resolved against the insurer. If </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972554.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Section 2 the first amicus curiae is corrected to read </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1749.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Andrew Heaton were on brief. Klein and Decof & Grimm were on brief. Others were absorbed by insured entities. Its proprietors the banks and credit unions that dealt with it did nothing to dispel this misconception. 2 institutions were unable to reopen. They were all placed into conservatorship. The depositors' and creditors' suits were 2As of the time the parties' briefs were filed. The Act provides that potentially responsible parties who in good faith achieve judicially approved settlements with Depco will not be liable for contribution to other joint tortfeasors. The potential liability of other joint tortfeasors will be reduced only by the dollar amount of the settlement. If a joint tortfeasor were held responsible for (and paid) more than its ratable share of damages. The idea behind the statute is scarcely original. The Depco Act is modeled on the special contribution provisions contained in the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation & Liability Act (CERCLA). Is to reach early settlements with most potentially responsible parties. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-6338.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> BACKGROUND Plaintiff Haberman is the sole shareholder of a professional corporation. Were returning to Oklahoma City from a pleasure trip in Dallas. Moomey was the driver and owner of a 2000 Mercury SUV that was headed northbound on I 35 just five miles south of Davis. The 2000 Mercury SUV was not a scheduled vehicle under the Center's commercial insurance policy. <hr> On some date. The Center was the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-6243.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sitting by designation. <hr> jurisdiction over CWA citizen enforcement actions when a state has commenced and is diligently prosecuting the same violations under a state law </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept98/95-4099.ma2.html">UNITED STATES V. FERN (9/23/1998, NO. 95-4099)<BR></A><BR> Is withdrawn. The following opinion is substituted in its stead.</P> <P> In this consolidated appeal. The Monte Carlo was insured for up to two million dollars under a fire loss policy the Lexington Insurance Company issued. Contracted with Fern to determine whether the Monte Carlo's conference room and suites were contaminated with asbestos as a result of the fire. Fern then orchestrated a fraudulent scheme to (1) convince Lexington that the Monte Carlo was contaminated thoroughly with asbestos. Neither Fern nor AER was licensed to conduct asbestos abatement or removal work. Was responsible for the asbestos abatement project at the Monte Carlo. That Judy Joyner Jerry Joyner's sister in law and the president of Action Systems was the on site supervisor.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr2000/99-12261.man.html">AT&T WIRELESS PCS V. CITY OF ATLANTA (4/26/2000, NO. 99-12261)<BR></A><BR> Because the TCA's remedial scheme is sufficiently comprehensive to imply congressional intent to foreclose § 1983 as a remedy. Is licensed by the Federal Communications Commission to provide personal wireless services within the State of Georgia. Was rejected. Nor was the denial supported by substantial evidence in a written record.</P> <P> AT&. Arguing that the ruling was erroneous because TCA plaintiffs <EM>can</EM> use §§ 1983 and 1988 to enforce the TCA.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/06/972979P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court held that Minot was not subject to the constraints of the Commerce Clause because it operated the landfill just as any private operator would. The city was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-2340.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Jorge Marrero Narvaez were on brief. Were on brief. The gist of EPA's decision was straightforward: having previously established secondary treatment requirements because PRASA's POTW emitted pollutants into stressed waters. The NPDES permit issued to 1 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-2287.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Klickstein & Levy were on brief for appellant. Were on brief for appellee. Roche was a general shipper trainee. The claim was tried by the court over five days in May 1993. The total amount awarded to Richardson was $104. The court found that Roche was not discharged for his own protected activity. The court found that he was terminated because </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-6104.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> CERCLA's statutory definition of this term is somewhat turbid. Is unambiguous. We are led to the contrary conclusion because another part of the statute's text provides a catch all provision that encompasses Seaboard's entire production site. Each building is separated by 40 to 100 feet. At issue are the emissions from Dorman Farm's waste management system. Land application area is a separate facility. Seaboard is obligated to report under 103 only if the ammonia emissions for each individual facility exceed one hundred pounds per day. It nevertheless concluded that Seaboard was required to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1976.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 1994 is amended as follows: On the cover sheet. Harsch were on brief for appellants. Nystrom and Kirkpatrick & Lockhart were on brief for appellees Dante E. Were on brief for appellees Federal Highway Administration. ' </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr95/94-4067.opa.html">BECHTEL CONSTR. V. SECRETARY OF LABOR<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Bechtel Constr. v. Senior Circuit Judge:<p> <p> This is an appeal from the Secretary of Labor's determination that petitioner violated the employee protection provisions of the Energy Reorganization Act. Petitioner Bechtel Construction Company (Bechtel) claims that the Secretary of Labor's finding that Bechtel discharged one of its employees for engaging in whistleblower activities is not supported by substantial evidence. Petitioner further claims that the employee's conduct was not protected activity as a matter of law.<p> Our review of the record convinces us that the Secretary should be affirmed.<p> I.<p> <p> Bechtel is a contractor at the Turkey Point Nuclear Power Facility at Florida City. Turkey Point is owned and operated by the Florida Power and Light Company (FPL). Which is licensed to operate the facility by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The facility is divided into two areas. The radiation control area and the non radiation area.<p> Approximately every 18 months the nuclear units at Turkey Point are shut down for refueling. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972389.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Little Neck is a heavily wooded residential area with no significant commercial development. Little Neck is zoned R 20 Residential under the Virginia Beach Zoning Ordinance. Digital service is considered an advance over analog service. Because digital signals are weaker than analog signals. They investigated several possible tower sites in Little Neck and concluded that the Church's property was the most desirable. The towers were also to provide analog signals for GTE Mobile Net and 360o Communications (not parties to this case). Largely on the grounds that such a commercial use of the Church property was improper in a residential area and that the towers. The Council also appears to have had before it one shorter petition supporting the application and various letters to councilmen on the matter. Voiced his opposition in light of the testimony of area residents who did not think that improved service was worth the burden of having the towers looming over them. (II) shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. ... 5 (iii) Any decision by a State or local government or instrumentality thereof to deny a request to place. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1597.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Antonetti & Cordova was on brief for petitioner. Were on brief for respondent. Corporation challenges the discharge permit it was issued by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Clean Water Act. Caribbean contends that EPA acted arbitrarily and capriciously by incorporating a water quality certification issued by the Envi ronmental Quality Board of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (EQB) which was still undergoing review by the EQB. The permitting regime is a hybrid one in which both EPA and the counterpart state agency play a role. No such delega tion is present here. Puerto Rico is treated as a state for purposes of the Clean Water Act. Its local agency is the Environmental Quality Board. 2 To obtain a permit. No EPA permit can issue unless the state in which the discharge will occur gives its own approval (called </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-5086.html">BAYOU V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1313.html">SEIKO EPSON CORP. V. NU-KOTE INTERNATIONAL INC.<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief were <U>Brian M. With him on the brief was <U>Ronald S. Of counsel were <U>Robert D. While the appeal of the preliminary injunction was pending Epson amended its complaint to add counts of infringement of three additional patents. 472 (together </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1186.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.A. were on brief for appellant. Hall and Hess were on brief for appellee. This was applied to some of the steel beams and elsewhere in a six story building in Concord. That plaintiff was erecting for its offices. The second verdict was for $3. Complaining that there should have been no new trial. That if a new trial was proper. It should have included liability. Its main concern was the inadequacy of the verdict. Was too abbreviated instructions on the measure of damages. A spelling out of the concept that if defendant was liable (negligence or strict liability). Plaintiff was entitled to future costs of replacement irrespective of what remedial procedure it ultimately adopted. It was important to remove doubts or confusion from the jurors' minds that might tend to reduce the damages. The second jury had been allowed to include an item for which the court later concluded defendant was not chargeable. 3 given seven figure estimates of the cost of removal. That since in Morse's already expressed opinion there was much less material in the building than Halliwell assumed. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr98/96-8792.man.html">PACHECO DE PEREZ V. AT&T CO. (4/29/1998, NO. 96-8792)<BR></A><BR> Dismissed the consolidated actions under the doctrine of <EM>forum non conveniens.</EM></P> <P> The threshold question on appeal is whether. The district court should have remanded the case back to the Georgia state court for lack of federal jurisdiction. Although there is complete diversity among the parties. Removal of a case on diversity grounds is not permitted if one or more of the defendants is a citizen of the state in which the suit was originally filed. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). Because the individual defendants in this case are Georgia citizens. That the presence of the Georgia defendants should not prevent removal of the plaintiffs' lawsuits because the Georgia defendants were fraudulently joined in order to defeat original diversity jurisdiction.</P> <P> The defendants further assert that federal question jurisdiction exists in this case under four alternative theories. They argue that the plaintiffs' complaint presents a substantial federal question because the plaintiffs must rely on a federal treaty to prove that they have standing to proceed in the Georgia state courts. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972118.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Although the case was brought mainly under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The City was required to reimburse Pulaski for certain expenses in operating the incinerator. The WDSA's original term was fifteen years. For the first eleven years the WDSA was in effect. Community opposition was mounting against the operation of any incinerator whether retrofitted or new at the 3 Pulaski site. If it was certified by the Director of Public Works. Replacement or expansion is necessary to serve the public interest in the efficient. Seeking (1) a declaratory judgment that the Moratorium was preempted by state law and (2) damages for the City's alleged breach of the WDSA. The Director certified to the City Council that a replacement incinerator at the Pulaski site was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Oct2004/Oct12/03-10528.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. 1 * A list of acronyms used in this opinion is appended. A direct appeal from two orders of the FAA brought by Davis Mountains Trans Pecos Heritage Association in which the Welch parties have intervened. 2 3 prepared by the Air Force and adopted by the FAA does not satisfy NEPA and therefore remand to the agencies to prepare a supplemental EIS in accordance with this opinion. I. Background The basis of petitioners' complaints is the RBTI. The MTR is a flight corridor where pilots can practice lowaltitude navigation and maneuvers. Petitioners are Davis Mountains Trans Pecos Heritage Association (DMTPHA). A nonprofit corporation whose members are farmers. We have jurisdiction to review the FAA's approvals under 49 U.S.C. § 46110(a). We will not address intervenors' argument that the FAA failed to adequately consider the effects of the RBTI on Lubbock. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1810.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that Oyola was not disabled at step five of the sequential evaluation process set out in 20 C.F.R. 404.1520(f). The ALJ determined that Oyola's epilepsy was a severe impairment which precluded him from returning to his previous employment. That Oyola did not have a disabling emotional or mental condition. Although the ALJ found that Oyola could not engage in work in which he would have to climb or balance. He determined that Oyola was not 1. The medical record shows that Oyola only occasionally complained of pain or of other medical problems that might have caused him pain. He was advised to rest for a week. No medication or course of treatment was prescribed. Was prescribed medicine. He was reported stable when he left the hospital. Although the 1985 medical 3 report is practically unreadable. It appears to indicate that medication was prescribed for Oyola's pain. His failure to do so was not error under the circumstances. The medical records evidencing Oyola's reports of pain are not very probative. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1667.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Smith & Lancaster were on brief for appellee. I I BACKGROUND BACKGROUND VanHaaren was involved in an automobile collision with an uninsured motorist on July 1. State Farm wrote VanHaaren's counsel requesting confirmation that VanHaaren was residing in Florida. He requested that VanHaaren's counsel advise State Farm </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/08/981161P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was demoted from his position as warden of the state maximum security unit after he spoke out about corruption and lack of security in the institution. Terry Campbell was employed in the Arkansas state prison system for seventeen years prior to his appointment as warden of the Tucker Maximum Security Unit on The Honorable Gary A. The Director of the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC) was Larry Norris. He was the official who appointed Campbell warden at Tucker. Part of the reason he offered him the Tucker position was because he believed Campbell was strong on policy. Campbell was regarded by others in the system as meticulous in his implementation of ADC policies and procedures. When Campbell arrived at Tucker he was faced with morale and turnover problems and numerous vacant staff positions. Illegal contraband was moving into and within the prison so he instituted policies to search all staff. Through his investigation he learned there were security breaches at Tucker. Cell doors which had been altered so that inmates were able to open them. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8858623031FAE4BF88256F090054C98E/$file/0135898.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The plaintiffs in this case are suing to vindicate a public right that has already been litigated by other environmental groups. Have already been challenged by other environmental groups using the same arguments that the plaintiffs now present. We agree with the district court that the current plaintiff's interests were virtually represented by the previous groups. We have jurisdiction based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Both the Beaver Newt and Silver Fork areas are located within the Rogue River National Forest in southwestern Oregon. The Rule 60(b) motion was based upon the allegation that the attorney in the American Lands suit did not have authority to The named plaintiffs included: American Lands Alliance. Headwaters' complaint is virtually identical to the complaint filed by KlamathSiskiyou. Headwaters is represented by the same counsel that represented Klamath Siskiyou in the prior litigation. Standard of Review A district court's judgment based upon res judicata is a mixed question of law and fact in which legal issues predominate and is reviewed de novo. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C72B8570A5CAE2CA88256BE6004EB1F1/$file/0055027.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is withdrawn and replaced by the attached opinion. The Oil Companies' petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. Is also DENIED. Circuit Judge: We are asked to decide who must pay for cleaning up the McColl Superfund Site in Fullerton. The site was contaminated with hazardous waste associated with the production of aviation fuel during World War II. Contending that the United States was liable for cleanup costs. The district court held that the Oil Companies were liable as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-2242.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Myers & Cook were on brief for appellee City of Pittsfield. Myers & Cook were on brief for appellee City of Pittsfield. P.C. was on brief for appellees Krofta Engineering Corp. P.C. was on brief for appellees Krofta Engineering Corp. Berry & Howard were on brief for appellee Metcalf & Eddy. Howard were on brief for appellee Metcalf & Eddy. Blankstein & Lund were on brief for O'Brien & Gere. Inc. & Lund were on brief for O'Brien & Gere. Simsarian & Wickstrom were on brief for appellee Fisher. Simsarian & Wickstrom were on brief for appellee Fisher. Brought suit against the City and various contractors and consultants for alleged viola tions of federal and state law.1 Summary judgment was granted in favor of all six defendants on appellants' federal claims and the court dismissed the pendent state law claims without preju dice. The City reopened its Ashley Reser voir to supply area residents with drinking water while other 1The five other defendants are Kroftka Engineering Corp. City water facilities were undergoing construction. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-2215.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Were on joint brief for appellees United States Army Corps of Engineers and Massachusetts Water Resources Authority. 2 TORRUELLA. Found that the Corps' determinations under Section 404 were not arbitrary. Factual Background This appeal is an offspring of the colossal effort to clean up Boston Harbor. The MWRA was required. Eventually four technologies and ten potential sites were identified from a field of 299 sites. Additional evaluation was conducted to further screen the potential sites for detailed analysis. Such as cost and the extent to which potential communities were already hosting permanent wastewater treatment facilities. Four were further evaluated for sludge processing. While two sites Rowe Quarry and MCI Walpole were further evaluated for a landfill operation. To the east of the landfill site is the head of the Neponset Sole Source Aquifer.6 This sole source aquifer serves several wells that are the only source of drinking water to the residents of the Town of Walpole.7 EPA concluded that the nearest of these wells is located more than two miles from the landfill site and is separated from the landfill by soils of low permeability. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-5058.html">ASSOCIATED ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Of counsel was <u>Jason A. With her on the brief were <u>Loretta C. We affirm.</p> <p ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C7782E9891760EFF882571C6004BD4EB/$file/0415442.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The issue is whether Basalt Pond is subject to the CWA because the Pond contains wetlands adjacent to a navigable river of the United States. The district court held that discharges into the Pond are discharges into the Russian River. The controlling opinion is that of Justice Kennedy who said that to qualify as a navigable water under the CWA the body of water itself need not be continuously flowing. That there must be a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971926.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Alleging that defendant appellee Driggs struck and gouged the pipeline in 1986 while Driggs was constructing a parking lot near the pipeline and that this gouge resulted in the pipe's eventual rupture in 1993. At the close of appellants' case in chief the district court granted defendants' motion for a directed verdict because appellants' case against Driggs was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1271.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.C. was on brief for appellant John Corral. Was on brief for appellee. *Of the Third Circuit. We determine that under the Sentencing Guidelines an additional fine to meet the cost of supervised release may not be imposed where the defendant is indigent. We will remand for deletion of the additional fine. Finding that the defendant was indigent. Except where the defendant establishes that he is unable to pay. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=90-2133.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.C. were on brief for appellants. Were on brief for appellee. * Of the District of Maine. Does this criminal sanction apply when the imminent danger is not to people at the publicly owned treatment works. Facts The defendant John Borowski was the President and owner of Borjohn Optical Technology. When a mirror was improperly plated. Because the pollutants were ultimately discharged into a publicly owned treatment works. Borjohn was subject to the EPA's pretreatment regulations. Enormous health concerns are associated with exposure to nitric acid and nickel in the amounts involved here. Repeated employee exposure to the chemicals was unavoidable. Borjohn employees were told to bail out the harmful solutions by hand using a plastic bucket or a portable pump. Once a tank was nearly empty it was tipped over the edge of the sink and a scoop or small cup was used to scoop out any remaining solution. The employees were required to scrape the sides and bottom of nickel baths to extricate a layer of nickel byproduct called </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-5153.html">RITH ENERGY V. UNITED STATES<BR></A><BR> Filed a combined petition for panel rehearing and rehearing <u>en</u> <u>banc</u> for plaintiff appellant.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug97/95-6501.opa.html">LEGAL ENVTL. ASSISTANCE FOUND. V. EPA<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Legal Envtl. Circuit Judge:<p> <p> The issue in this petition for review is whether the United States Environmental Protection Agency ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-2331.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It is the\ <span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-1353.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> While\ the court apparently concluded that La Marginal Beach was the new\ proposed beach disposal site. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/03/99-1351.htm">99-1351 -- U.S. V. ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL CORP. -- 03/04/2002<BR></A><BR> Was circulated to the members of the panel and all circuit judges of the court in regular service. That suggestion is denied. <p> The petition for rehearing by the panel has been considered by the panel and it has been determined that rehearing is granted for the limited purpose of modifying the opinion and ordering a limited remand to the district court as provided herein. The limited remand to the district court is for the purpose of that court making findings of fact and conclusions concerning the issue of disclosure prior to filing of this action in accordance with the False Claims Act. A supplemental record will be transmitted to this court containing the additional findings and conclusions made on this limited remand. This court will otherwise retain jurisdiction of this cause. The rulings made previously in our opinion are undisturbed. Final disposition of these appeals will be made. <p> The court's opinion as modified on rehearing by the panel is being filed along with this order. <p> ENTERED FOR THE COURT <p> <p> Patrick Fisher. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-2002.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This opinion limns the basis for our ruling.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971756.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. OPINION PER CURIAM: Appellant Wheeling Pittsburgh Steel Corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/03/03-11038.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Finding that the action was outside the one year limitations period for a Fed. The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. Given that ABC was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/80D30AD0ABD8D5A7882572B5005A498F/$file/0535323.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court held that Kelly Ryan is not entitled to indemnity from Royal under the Marine Coverage Endorsement ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2517.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> O</SPAN> was on the brief. Were on the brief. The Navy was conducting a training exercise in South Salinas Bay. The exercise was halted. The appellants were identified as the occupants of the boats and were charged and brought to trial. There is no dispute that appellants were occupants of these boats. Trial was held before Magistrate Judge Aida Delgado Coló. All of the appellants were adjudged guilty of criminal trespass in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1382. The regulation at issue in this case (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2143.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief. Lewis LLP</SPAN> was on brief. Brought by a company whose hazardous waste was deposited at the Picillo site against a group of people who were involved with the site.</P> <BR WP= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/09/973545P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The defendants are present and former owners of companies that furnished scrap wire to the site's proprietor for an environmentally unsound recycling process. McGuire was paid based on the weight of insulation burned off. He also may have conducted smelting activities generating slag that he deposited on the premises. MPCA staff advised its Commissioners that no RFRAs should be issued to the scrap dealers because their liability was not entirely clear. The RFI is an informal data gathering administrative procedure. It is described by MPCA as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2348.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Were on brief. New Life contends that the district court erred in awarding Cal Surance summary judgment on its claims that Cal Surance should be held liable for failing to provide it with an insurance policy that would have covered a series of events that put it out of business. Had unlawfully sold securities that were not registered with the state. Butterfield had sold some $1.3 million worth of securities that were neither registered nor approved for sale by New Life. This unlawful practice is known in the securities industry as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1454.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Were on brief. That the United States was negligent and/or breached warranties in the surveying of the Boston Harbor and the dissemination of nautical charts that failed to accurately depict the depth of the harbor. That the district court erred in: (1) finding that there is an implied discretionary function exemption in the Suits in Admiralty Act. Which are maintained by the Army Corps of Engineers ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-2658.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief. Miller maintained that he was disciplined. Denied positions for which he was qualified. That the events within the limitations period were insufficient to support Miller's claim of constructive discharge. That Miller failed to show that the DOC was motivated by discriminatory animus when it refused to promote him or transfer him to a new position. </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CDA448EC67C9D576882572970081A142/$file/0417554.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The body of water into which Cargill allegedly discharged waste is a non navigable. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Baykeeper after determining that the Pond qualifies as a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug98/96-4052.ma2.html">JOHNSON V. CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE (8/3/1998, NO. 96-4052)<BR></A><BR> The petition for panel rehearing is otherwise denied.</P> <P> Herbert Johnson is a black male and former employee of the City of Fort Lauderdale Fire Department. Recognizing that its order </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-1376.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on consolidated brief for petitioners Bangor Hydro Electric Company. Were on consolidated brief for respondent.</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7E9D19A55491575988256AD3000B592B/$file/0035041.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Apply 13779 the Pullman doctrine to vacate and remand the claims of the remaining Appellants with instructions to stay further proceedings until the Washington state courts have had the opportunity to consider the merits of the issues raised in the complaint under that state's law. I BACKGROUND Appellants Bernard and Jean Shaw ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/01/00-2136.htm">00-2136 -- JOSEPH A. V. INGRAM -- 01/07/2002<BR></A><BR> <a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-2326B.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for the United States appellants.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-2326.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for the United States appellants.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3D534390583B882F88256C380004FE18/$file/0056603.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Total Myanmar was appointed Operator of the Gas Production Joint Venture and the Gas Transportation Company. Total Myanmar was responsible. For </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-2028.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Were on brief. The federal Safe Water Drinking Act (SDWA or Act) authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to prescribe criteria specifying when public water systems are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1708.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This case illustrates the perils facing a small business that does not determine whether it is subject to regulation under 33 U.S.C. § 1321. The spill was largely contained with the help of cleanup experts sent in by the state of Maine. </FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FCDEC0F7A124EC4A88256B5D005D0555/$file/0055027.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: We are asked to decide who must pay for cleaning up the McColl Superfund Site in Fullerton. The site was contaminated with hazardous wastes associated with the production of aviation fuel during World War II. Contending that the United States was liable for cleanup costs. The district court held that the Oil Companies were liable as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/962025.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. The permit would have authorized B&B to fill 1.5 acres of wetland in Prince George's County. Whose § 404 Permit Applications Were Distinguished and/or Relied Upon as Bases for Denying Appellants' § 404 Permit. Whether the Army Corps of Engineers' Denial of Appellants' Permit Was Arbitrary and Capricious. A rubble landfill or rubblefill is a disposal site for nonpolluting construction debris. It was estimated that the ravine. B&B was asked to minimize the traffic impact on the neighboring community by accessing its site from the west. B&B attempted to show that the rubblefill was in the public interest. Another was disturbed by the damage that the project would do to the bald eagle nesting site on the property. The letters showed that citizens were troubled by noise. The Corps forwarded copies of the comments to B&B and indicated that it was inclined to deny the permit. Who was charged with making the final decision. He concluded that the detrimental environmental impacts of the project outweighed its benefits and that the project was contrary to the public interest. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/02/981628P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case was tried by a United States Magistrate Judge. Who is part Cherokee Indian. He was transferred to Deere's foundry in Waterloo. Montgomery was diagnosed as suffering from narcolepsy.4 In 1989. Montgomery was assigned to work in the foundry's safety department under the direct supervision of Ronald Parr. Montgomery was responsible for administering the company's Right to Know program. Montgomery was reassigned to the environmental compliance area under the supervision of Randy McDougall. His The discrimination claims alleged under the Iowa Civil Rights Act are analyzed in the same manner as their federal law counterparts. Narcolepsy is a condition characterized by recurrent. See Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary 1101 (28th ed. 1994). 24 3 chief duties in his new position were preparation of monthly discharge monitoring reports for submission to the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR reports) and the City of Waterloo. Montgomery was discharged from his employment in August 1994. Montgomery was fiftytwo years old and held the job title of senior engineer analyst. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/962003.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> David </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Sept2003/014259p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> These costs have been or will be incurred by plaintiff appellant Morton International. Who are not parties to this appeal. We will remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The following facts are undisputed. A mercury processing plant was operated at the Site. The plant was the largest domestic producer of intermediate inorganic mercury compounds. The compounds were formulated. The plant was owned by F.W. It was transferred to Wood Ridge Chemical Corporation (its parent company is Velsicol Chemical Corporation) in 1960. The plant was closed in 1974. Velsicol and Morton were held strictly liable. That judgment was upheld following numerous appeals and successive litigation. Various other entities were required to perform a remedial investigation/feasibility study for the Site. Morton is trying to recover from other allegedly responsible parties some of the costs it has incurred and will continue to incur to clean up the Site. The defendants argue that Morton's characterization of the PVM transactions is inaccurate. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Nov2002/013973u.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will not. Grant the petition for review since the Board's factual findings are supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole and the Board's construction of the National Labor Relations Act is reasonably defensible. The agent told the property manager at the Versailles that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/03/03-10528.1.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. 1 * A list of acronyms used in this opinion is appended. A direct appeal from two orders of the FAA brought by Davis Mountains Trans Pecos Heritage Association in which the Welch parties have intervened. 2 3 prepared by the Air Force and adopted by the FAA does not satisfy NEPA and therefore remand to the agencies to prepare a supplemental EIS in accordance with this opinion. I. Background The basis of petitioners' complaints is the RBTI. The MTR is a flight corridor where pilots can practice lowaltitude navigation and maneuvers. Petitioners are Davis Mountains Trans Pecos Heritage Association (DMTPHA). A nonprofit corporation whose members are farmers. We have jurisdiction to review the FAA's approvals under 49 U.S.C. § 46110(a). We will not address intervenors' argument that the FAA failed to adequately consider the effects of the RBTI on Lubbock. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/May2004/033028np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are in full agreement with the district court's thoughtful and searching analysis. We will affirm the district court substantially for the reasons set forth in the district court's Memorandum Opinion without further elaboration.1 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38 provides a remedy of damages for a party who is required to defend a legitimate judgment from a frivolous appeal. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/May2004/031226p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiffs are a class of mentally retarded adults in need of medical services from an intermediate care facility for persons with mental retardation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/May2003/023374u.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Its state law claims are not before us. Will affirm the judgment of the District Court.1 In addition. We will deny ROE's request. MPM is a holding company with subsidiaries in the business of designing. M PM is a public corporation whose stock traded on the Nasdaq National Market during the time period relevant to this dispute. There is no clear statement from ROE as to whether they were paid in cash or in stock. One of its notable achievements in the consulting arrangement was the commencement of negotiations for MPM to acquire ST2EP. Although the Complaint is not a model of clarity. Our review of a District Court's grant of a motion to dismiss is plenary. We are obliged to apply the same standards applied by the District Court. We agree with the District Court that ROE failed to allege an essential element of securities fraud pursuant to section 10(b).3 We have often stated that one of the threshold elements of a section 10(b) claim is a well pleaded allegation of a material misrepresentation or omission in connection with the purchase or sale of securities. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/March2003/022055u.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are unwilling to sustain. Outlet City concluded that there was creosote and that petroleum contamination had. The District Court denied the parties' cross motions for partial summary judgment on the CERCLA and Oil Spill Act claims because there were material. The case was reassigned to Judge Cavanaugh. The bench trial concluded on October and Oil Spill Act) were tried before Judge Cavanaugh. 26. The case was closed on March 25. Have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We have addressed the purpose of CERCLA in various contexts. We have found that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug98/97-2083.man.html">LOGGERHEAD TURTLE V. COUNTY COUNCIL OF VOLUSIA COUNTY (8/3/1998, NO. 97-2083)<BR></A><BR> Whether another federally protected sea turtle should have been allowed to join the Turtles as a party. The brightest light is the moon's reflection off the surf. Vehicles and other types of beachfront lighting have been documented in the disorientation (loss of bearings) and misorientation (incorrect orientation) of hatchling turtles </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/June2004/033388p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/961741.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. The district court determined that Moran was negligent and that this negligence was the sole cause of the spill. Moran cross appeals from the court's determination that it was negligent. Was docked at Norfolk International Terminals on the Elizabeth River. The vessel was to undock and move upstream to different docks. The vessel used bow and stern thrusters that were mounted on the side. The cleanup was directed by the United States Coast Guard. 806.12 to settle claims of those whose property was damaged by the spill. Which these agencies are seeking to recover from NSCSA. Claiming that Moran's negligence was 3 the cause of the spill. The Water Control Law claim was dismissed before trial. After a bench trial the district court found that Moran was negligent and that this negligence was the sole cause of the accident. Section 1002(a) establishes that the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Jan2002/003691.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was a consultant to appellee. Holding that the County was not amenable to suit under the FCA due to its mandatory punitive damages scheme. We will affirm the Order of the District Court. We must first determine whether the treble damages mandated by the Act are punitive. We note in passing that we agree with the District Court that an employee of a local governmental unit is not subject to suit under the Act when the employee does not personally benefit from the transaction constituting a violation of the Act. We conclude that no extended discussion is necessary with respect