Here's an interesting one from the Iowa Supreme Court, in which the issue is whether the federal Clean Air Act preempts a property owner's state-law nuisance claim.
In Freeman v. Grain Processing Corp., No. 1309723 (June 13, 2014), the issue was whether property owners could assert trespass and nuisance claims under Iowa law against a nearby facility which in the process of converting corn into ethanol and corn syrup, releases what are alleged to be harmful chemicals into the air. The court undertook a detailed analysis, concluding that the CAA does not preempt common law trespass and nuisance claims.
Characterized by one of the amicus parties as "A Victory for Property Rights," the opinion recounts the history of the CAA, and public and private nuisance claims as a form of private environmental law. There's a lot of detailed rationale set out in the opinion, but the short story is that the court concluded that "Congress expressly wanted the CAA to be a floor, but not a ceiling, on air pollution control," slip op. at 41, and simply because someone is in compliance with the CAA's emissions standards doesn't mean the complained-of activity isn't a nuisance.
In addition, the court rejected the argument that this was a political question and thus non-justiciable. As we all know, state courts are not bound by Article III restrictions, and for the most part may choose to deal with cases lacking a case and controversy, or that may be described as political questions in federal courts. Here, however, the court adopted the federal model, but concluded that this was not a non-justiciable case because "there is no textual constitutional commitment of the issues raised in this case to another branch of government." Slip op. at 61.
It's a long opinion (63 pages), but a fun and relatively quick read.