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

Would the Superfund Response Cost Allocation Procedures Considered by the 103d Congress Reduce Transaction Costs?

One of the most prominent issues in the Congressional debate over reauthorization of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund) has been how to reduce "transaction costs" while at the same time fairly and expeditiously resolving liability disputes. This Dialogue asks: Would the allocation procedures proposed in last year's Superfund reauthorization bills meet those sometimes conflicting goals?

Ekotek Site PRP Comm. v. Self

The court holds that a potentially responsible party (PRP) must pay 1 percent of the past and future response costs incurred during the cleanup of a contaminated site in Salt Lake City, Utah, by a committee of PRPs under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERC...

Browning-Ferris Indus. of Ill., Inc. v. Ter Maat

The court holds that a defendant-operator company and a defendant-transporter company are liable under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) for costs incurred in cleaning up the MIG/De Wane Superfund site in Illinois, and orders them each to pay over $2 ...

Canadyne-Georgia Corp. v. Cleveland

The court holds that a pesticide manufacturing partnership is liable for response costs in a Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) §113 contribution action brought by the corporation that purchased the partnership's assets. The court first holds that the val...

Concrete Sales & Servs., Inc. v. Blue Bird Body Co.

The court holds that two customers of an electroplating company did not "arrange for" the disposal of the company's hazardous waste under Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) §107(a), and, therefore, the company could not seek contribution from the customer...

United States v. Pepper's Steel & Alloys, Inc.

The court certifies to the Florida Supreme Court the question of whether an insured is entitled under state law to an award of attorney fees incurred in enforcing a settlement agreement against an insurer. A steel company sought to recover remediation costs at an allegedly polluted site from its ins...

Dodd v. Hood River County

The court holds that a state land use board decision precludes property owners from obtaining federal court relief of their takings claim under the U.S. Constitution. The landowners were prevented from building on their land due to an Oregon State law permitting dwellings to be built in forest use z...

California v. Campbell

The court holds that the trustees of a manufacturer's estate are liable for the trichloroethylene (TCE) contamination under state nuisance and environmental laws. A district court issued interlocutory orders finding the trustees liable under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, an...

Entergy Arkansas, Inc. v. Nebraska

The court holds that an interstate radioactive waste commission can sue a member state for violating the good-faith provisions of a radioactive waste compact. The court first holds that the Eleventh Amendment does not bar the commission's suit against the state. Congress has the plenary power to att...