Search Results
Use the filters on the left-hand side of this screen to refine the results further by topic or document type.

Wilson v. Amoco Corp.

The court issues a mandatoryinjunction against an oil company for extensive contamination of a river and surrounding land, but due to lack of evidence refuses to enjoin three other companies. The court first declines to invoke the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. The doctrine does not mandate blind...

Natural Resources Defense Council v. Peña

The court dismisses environmental groups' complaint alleging that the National Environmental Policy Act requires the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to prepare a supplemental programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS) addressing new information concerning the use of the Los Alamos National L...

United States v. Domestic Indus., Inc.

The court holds that a company that allegedly sold the United States a lesser grade oil than required under contract specifications and then charged it for the higher grade oil is liable under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) for violating oil management regulations. The court first...

Trident Inv. Management, Inc. v. Amoco Oil Co.

The court affirms a jury award for damages in a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) citizen suit brought by the owner of a shopping center that was contaminated by a neighboring gasoline station's leaking underground storage tanks (USTs). The court first holds that it will not overturn the...

Woodfeathers, Inc. v. Washington County, Or.

The court holds that a district court erred in failing to abstain under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), in a case challenging the constitutionality of an Oregon county's solid waste ordinance. A company charged with violating the ordinance sought declaratory and injunctive relief against enfo...

Minyard Enters., Inc. v. Southeastern Chem. & Solvent Co.

The court holds that $200,000 awarded to a former owner whose property was damaged by an underground storage tank (UST) operator's negligence is not duplicative of the former owner's award for past and future response costs under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability ...

Southfund Partners III v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.

The court holds that a company is not entitled to recover response costs under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) from the former owner of property contaminated by leaking underground storage tanks (USTs). The court first holds that the company's CERCL...

Acushnet Co. v. Mohasco Corp.

The court affirms, but on different grounds, a district court decision dismissing corporations' contribution claim under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) against several potentially responsible parties (PRPs) for response costs incurred at the Sulliv...

Fort Ord Toxics Project v. California EPA

The court holds that the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) §113(h) does not bar a district court's jurisdiction over environmental groups' California Environmental Quality Act action against state agencies for failing to prepare an environmental impact s...

Axel Johnson, Inc. v. Carroll Carolina Oil Co.

The court holds that the former owner and operator of a refinery may not bring cost recovery or contribution actions under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) against the subsequent and current owners. The court first holds that the former owner is a pe...