Jump to Navigation
Jump to Content

Hazardous Substances

United Dairy Farmers, Inc. v. United States

The court affirms a district court holding that a dairy could not deduct soil remediation costs as ordinary business expenses under 26 U.S.C. §162 of the Internal Revenue Code. The dairy claimed that its soil remediation costs at two...

United States v. Amoco Chem. Co.

The court holds that neither an amended Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) consent decree between a waste handler and the United States nor a previous trust agreement with other CERCLA...

Boeing Co. v. Cascade Corp.

The court holds that when a party is liable for pollution response costs under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), it must share them regardless of whether it is the sole cause of the...

United States v. Pesses

The court holds that a metal company must pay over $1.49 million in remediation costs to a group of 191 settling potentially responsible parties (PRPs) that incurredover $10 million in Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation...

Eight Basic Rules of Superfund Allocation

Editors' Summary: Can the complex process of allocating cleanup costs at Superfund sites be distilled into a set of practical and common-sense rules? This Dialogue, written by a co-author of an Article on Superfund allocation...

United States v. Burlington N. R.R.

The court affirms in part and reverses in part a district court's decision to reduce the amount a potentially responsible party (PRP) must pay to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for remediation costs incurred under the...

Seattle, City of v. Washington State Dep't of Transp.

The court holds that although a state department of transportation is technically liable under the Washington Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) for the disposal of a tank car at a Superfund site, the department need not pay remedial...

Akzo Nobel Coatings, Inc. v. Aigner Corp.

The court vacates a district court's allocation of contribution costs a coating company must pay for cleanup costs incurred by another potentially responsible party (PRP) at the Fisher-Calo site in Indiana. Although the coating company...

Employers Ins. of Wausau v. Duplan Corp.

The court holds that under New York law, insurers are not obligated to defend and indernnify a clothing manufacturer from private and government damage claims stemming from contamination at the manufacturer's New York and Virgin Islands...

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...