Jump to Navigation
Jump to Content

Alabama

United States v. Union Elec. Co.

The court holds that a district court did not abuse its discretion when it approved a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) consent decree requiring settling potentially responsible parties (PRPs) to pay some of the remediation...

Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. Reilly Indus., Inc.

The court holds that a company's environmental remediation failed to comply with the national contingency plan (NCP) and, thus, barred it from recovering any Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA...

United States v. Iron Mountain Mines, Inc.

The court holds that U.S. activities at a California mine during World War II did not subject it to liability as an operator under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). During the war, the...

United States v. Iron Mountain Mines, Inc.

The court holds that the United States is not liable under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) for any response costs associated with the remediation of a California mine's acid mine...

New York v. Solvent Chem. Co.

The court holds that future Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) contribution actions by settling private defendants against private nonsettlors at a New York Superfund site will be governed by...

United States v. Iron Mountain Mines, Inc.

The court holds that the corporate successor of a chemical company that acquired the assets of a mining company is liable for Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) response costs attributable to...

Gould Inc. v. A&M Battery & Tire Serv.

The court holds in a Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) §113 contribution action that plaintiff, the successor-owner/operator of a battery breaking facility, is liable for 75 percent of the...

Chemical Waste Management, Inc. v. Hunt

The Court holds that an Alabama act that imposes a disposal fee on hazardous wastes generated outside the state, but not on hazardous wastes from sources within Alabama, violates the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The...

  • «
  • ...
  • 3  |  
  • 4  |  
  • 5  |  
  • 6  |  
  • 7