|
Your path: Home) Archive Page) Subjects) Statutes - Federal) Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
|
|
ABEL Software |
|
|
|
Ability to Pay EPA Evaluations |
|
|
|
Adjoining Landowners |
|
|
|
Administration |
November 2009: Ninth Circuit Holds U.S. EPA’s Administration of Unilateral Administrative Orders under CERCLA Is Not Subject to Judicial Review for ‘Pattern and Practice’ Claims City of Rialto v. West Coast Loading Corp., ___F.3d___ 08-55474 (9th Cir. 2009) | |
May 2008: The Latest Chapter in the Saga of Frey v. EPA and CERCLA Plays Out in the District Court of Indiana Frey et al. v. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency et al., slip copy, ___F.Supp.2d____ 1:00-CV-660-RLY-KPF (S.D. Ind. Mar. 11, 2008) | |
February 2005: Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Aviall Services, Inc. (Or: How I Stopped Worrying and Learned to Read the SARA Amendments) | |
September 2004: D.C. Circuit Holds that EPA Need Not Consider Potential Remedy when Listing Site on the National Priorities List Honeywell International, Inc. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 372 F.3d 441 (D.C. Cir. 2004) | |
December 2003: District Court of Rhode Island Declines to Apply Retroactively the 2001 Amendments to CERCLA Innocent Landowner Defense United States v. Domenic Lombardi Realty, Inc. ___F.Supp.2d____, Case No. C.A. No. 98-591S (D. R.I. Oct. 17, 2003). |
December 2002: Ninth Circuit Finds Dismissal of CERCLA Claim against EPA Appropriate but Clean Water Act Claim against Corps of Engineers May Proceed Dierker, et al. v. Clarke, et al. ___F.3d___, Case No. 01-36016 (9th Cir. | |
August 2002: Bush Administration to Cut Funding for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Cleanups at 33 Superfund Sites | |
January 2002: Seventh Circuit Determines that CERCLA Remedial Actions Are "Complete" once Planned Cleanup Procedures Have Been Carried Out Frey v. United States Environmental Protection Agency ___ F.3d ___, Case No. 002748 (7th Cir. Nov. 6, 2001). | |
July 2001: Criminal Liability Is Increasing for Environmental Managers |
|
|
Administrative Order By Consent |
|
|
|
Agency Recovery of Supervision Costs |
|
|
|
Alkylation Acid |
|
|
|
All Appropriate Inquiry Regulations |
|
|
|
Ammonia |
|
|
|
Apportionment of Liability |
|
|
|
Armour Road Superfund Site |
|
|
|
Arranger Liability |
|
December 2009: District Court Finds a Responsible Party May Not Seek Contribution for Non-CERCLA Judgments— Government May Be an ‘Arranger’ for Activity that Released Hazardous Substances U.S. v. Washington State Department of Transportation, ___F.Supp.2d___ C08-5722RJB (W.D. WA. 2009) | |
July 2009: U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Joint and Several Liability Where a Reasonable Basis for Apportionment Exists, and Limits Arranger Liability Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. et al. v. U.S., et al., ___U.S. ___ 03-17125 (May 4, 2009) | |
June 2009: Apportionment Is Here to Stay and Knowledge of Disposal Is Simply Not Enough for CERCLA Arranger Liability | |
June 2009: CERCLA Response Costs Assessed against U.S. Based On WWII Contracts for Aviation Fuel Production Shell Oil Company et al. v. U.S., ___F.Supp.2d___ 06-141C (Fed. Cl. March 31, 2009) |
June 2009: U.S. Supreme Court Limits CERCLA Arranger Liability and Eliminates Presumption of Joint and Several Liability in Section 107 Actions |
December 2008: CERCLA and the U.S. Supreme Court: Good Bye Apportionment, Hello Arranger Liability for Chemical Manufacturers? | |
May 2008: Ninth Circuit Affirms CERCA Apportionment Allowed among Potentially Responsible Parties at Liability Stage U.S. and California Department of Toxic Substances Control v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Company, ___F.3d___ 03-17125 (9th Cir. March 25, 2008) | |
February 2008: District Court Denies Third-Party Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Third-Party Plaintiffs’ Claims on Ground that Plaintiffs Sufficiently Pled ‘Arranger’ Liability Under CERCLA § 107 U.S. v. Lyon, ___F.Supp.2d___ CV F 07-0491 LJO GSA (E.D. Cal 2007) | |
January 2008: Ninth Circuit Holds Sellers of Lead Containing Materials to Processing Plant Operator Are ‘Arrangers’ under CERCLA California Department of Toxic Substances Control v. Alco Pacific, Inc., ___ F.3d___ 05-55962 (9th Cir. Nov. 28, 2007) | |
June 2005: Texas District Court Holds Manufacturer’s Written Directions Sufficient Nexus to Allege Arranger Liability Vine Street LLC v. James R. Keeling, ___F.Supp.2d___ 6:03-CV-223 (E.D. Tex. March 24, 2005) | |
May 2005: Alaska Supreme Court Finds Statute Broadens the Scope of Arranger Liability for Hazardous Waste Disposal Berg v. Popham S-10815, 5879 (Alaska March 18, 2005) | |
January 2005: Sixth Circuit Upholds Plaintiff’s Recovery of a Percentage of Landfill Clean-up Costs where Defendant Arranged for Disposal under CERCLA §9607(a) GenCorp, Inc. v. Olin Corp., ___F.3d___ 03-3019, 3211 (6th Cir. Nov. 22, 2004) | |
October 2004: District Court Denies Summary Judgment under CERCLA where Elements of Both “Arranger” and “Successor” Liability Were Not Proven Signature Combs, Inc. v. United States, ___F.Supp.2d___ 98-2777 D, 93-2968, 00-2245 D (W.D. Tenn. Aug. 20, 2004) | |
July 2004: Parent Corporation Successfully Avoids Operator and Arranger Liability. BP Amoco Chemical Company v. Sun Oil Company, ___F.Supp.2d___ Civ. A.00-82-KAJ (D.De. May 5, 2004). | |
November 2003: Third Circuit Attempts To Set Forth Analysis To Be Applied In Cercla Arranger Liability Disputes Morton International, Inc. v. A.E. Staley ___F.3d___, Case No. 01-4259 (3rd Cir. Sept. 16, 2003). | |
November 2002: Court of Appeals: Ninth Circuit Certifies Questions Regarding Scope of Arranger Liability under State Law for Alaska Supreme Court Berg v. Popham, ___F.3d___ Case No. 01-35807 (9th Cir. Oct. 4, 2002) |
|
|
Arsenic |
|
|
|
Asbestos |
|
|
|
Attorneys Fees |
|
|
|
Bankruptcy |
|
|
|
Bills and Proposed Legislation |
|
|
|
Bunker Hill Metallurgical Superfund Site |
|
|
|
Burden of Proof |
|
October 2004: District Court Denies Summary Judgment under CERCLA where Elements of Both “Arranger” and “Successor” Liability Were Not Proven Signature Combs, Inc. v. United States, ___F.Supp.2d___ 98-2777 D, 93-2968, 00-2245 D (W.D. Tenn. Aug. 20, 2004) | |
May 2004: Ninth Circuit Holds that Plaintiff in a Contribution Suit under CERCLA Bears Burden of Proving Exclusion of Orphan Shares The Boeing Company v. North West Steel Rolling Mills, Inc. ___F.3d___, Case No. 97-35973 (9th Cir. March 17, 2004). | |
April 2004: The Ninth Circuit Upholds Preponderance of Evidence Standard and Rejects Broad Innocent Landowner Defense in CERCLA Action Western Properties Service Corp. v. Shell Oil Company et al. ___F.3d___, Case No. 01-55676 (9th Cir. Feb. 13, 2004). | |
September 2003: District Court Approves Relaxed Burden of Proof for CERCLA Plaintiffs Castaic Lake Water Agency v. Whittaker Corp. ___F.Supp.2d___, Case No. CV 00-12613 AHM (RZx), (C.D. Cal. July 15, 2003). |
|
|
Butler Mine Tunnel Site |
|
|
|
Cadmium |
|
|
|
Caldwell Superfund Site |
|
|
|
Causation |
|
|
|
Citizen Suits |
|
April 2009: District Court Decides Private Citizen Suits Are Not Barred by Previous Administrative Actions Hernandez v. Esso Standard Oil Co., ___F.Supp.2d___ 03-1485 (D. Puerto Rico, Feb. 10, 2009) | |
December 2008: District Court Holds RCRA Citizen Suit Filed before Entry of an Administrative Order Is Barred River Village West LLC v. The Peoples Gas Light and Coke Co., ___F.Supp.2d___ 05-2103, 06-4465, 06-5901 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 25, 2008) | |
December 2007: Seventh Circuit Rules CERCLA Section 113(H) Prohibits Citizen Suits Challenging Transfers of Federally Owned Superfund Property Pollack v. U.S. Dept. of Defense, ___F.3d___ 07-1104 (7th Cir. Oct. 18, 2007) | |
December 2006: Southern District of Indiana Holds that CERCLA Remedy Cannot Be Challenged under Other Environmental Laws Frey v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ___F.Supp.2d___ 1:00-CV-660-RLY-WTL (S.D. Ind. Sept. 29, 2006) | |
June 2005: Seventh Circuit Allows Citizen Suit for PCB Cleanup in Bloomington, Indiana to Proceed Sarah E. Frey, Kevin Enright, and Protect Our Woods, Inc. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Viacom, Inc.¸ ___F.3d___ 03-3877 (7th Cir. April 6, 2005) |
|
|
Civil Action Requirement of Contribution Claim |
|
|
|
Civil Enforcement Actions |
|
October 2009: Recent Investigations, Settlements, Penalties and Sanctions | |
April 2009: Recent Investigations, Settlements, Penalties and Sanctions |
April 2009: Recent Investigations, Settlements, Penalties and Sanctions | |
March 2009: Recent Investigations, Settlements, Penalties and Sanctions | |
January 2009: Recent Investigations, Settlements, Penalties and Sanctions | |
January 2009: Recent Investigations, Settlements, Penalties and Sanctions | |
May 2008: Recent Investigations, Settlements, Penalties and Sanctions | |
April 2008: Recent Investigations, Settlements, Penalties and Sanctions | |
February 2008: Recent Investigations, Settlements, Penalties & Sanctions | |
January 2008: District Court Provides Additional Guidance for Calculating Clean Water Act Penalties Sierra Club, et al. v. City and County of Honolulu, ___F.Supp.2d___ 04-00463 (D. Haw. Oct. 30, 2007) | |
January 2007: Recent Investigations, Settlements, Penalties and Sanctions | |
June 2006: Recent Investigations, Settlements, Penalties and Sanctions | |
March 2006: Recent Investigations, Settlements, Penalties and Sanctions | |
October 2005: Second Circuit Affirms Default Judgment Entered in CERCLA Case as a Result of Defendant’s Failure to Timely Appear State of New York v. Green, ____F.3d____ 04-4070-CV (2nd Cir. Aug. 18, 2005) |
|
|
Civil Enforcement and Liability |
|
|
|
Civil Penalties |
|
February 2005: Recent Investigations, Settlements, Penalties and Sanctions. | |
November 2004: Sixth Circuit Affirms Nearly $2 Million Fine for Failure to Answer CERCLA Section 104(e) Claim United States v. Gurley, ___F.3d___ 03-5132 (6th Cir. Sept. 21, 2004) | |
August 2004: Recent Investigations, Settlements, Penalties and Sanctions | |
April 2001: U.S. Announces Three Superfund Site Settlements in New York, Colorado, and Pennsylvania; $46 Million in Costs to be Paid United States v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. No. 96-CV-07215 (W.D. N.Y., settlement filed on Jan) United States v. Berks Assocs. No. 91-4868 (E.D. Pa., settlement filed Jan. 19, 2001). |
|
|
Class Actions |
|
|
|
Cleanup Costs |
|
August 2009: Third Circuit Holds CERCLA Potentially Responsible Party that Previously Recovered All of Its Cleanup Costs from Its Insurers Cannot Recover from other PRPs Friedland v. TIC-The Industrial Company; Geosyntec Consultants, ___F.3d___ 08-1042 (10th Cir. May 29, 2009) | |
March 2007: In Another Post-Aviall Decision the Seventh Circuit Found Voluntary Cleanup Created Implied Contribution Claim Rights under CERCLA § 107(a) Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago v. North American Galvanizing & Coatings, Inc., ___F.3d___ 05-3299 (7th Cir. Jan. 17, 2007) | |
August 2006: Litigant’s Failure to Explicitly Raise an Issue Before the District Court Is Foreclosed from Raising the Issue for the First Time on Appeal Esso Standard Oil Company v. Carlos E. Rodriguez-Perez, ___F.3d___ 05-1722 (1st Cir. June 14, 2006) | |
February 2006: Ninth Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment Denying Recovery of Cleanup Costs under CERCLA for Failure to Substantially Comply with the National Contingency Plan Carson Harbor Village, Ltd. v. County of Los Angles et al., ___F.3d___ 04-55024 (9th Cir. Jan. 12, 2006) | |
June 2005: District Court Dismisses Insurers Claims against Federal Government on Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction American Int’l Specialty Lines Insurance Co. v. U.S., ___F.Supp.2d___ C 04-01591 (N.D. Cal. March 24, 2005) | |
November 2003: District Judge Approves Revised Method for Calculating Indirect Costs under CERCLA and Gives EPA Large Award United States of America v. W.R. Grace & Company- Connecticut, et al. ___F.Supp.2d___, Case No. CV 01-72-M-DWM (D. Mont. Aug. 26, 2003). | |
October 2003: Recent Investigations, Settlements, Penalties and Sanctions | |
March 2003: Maryland District Court Makes It Easier to Bring Suit Under CERCLA 1325 "G" Street Associates v. Rockwood Pigments NA, ___F.Supp.2d___, Case No. DKC 2002-1622 (D. Md. Dec. 20, 2002) | |
February 2003: Second Circuit Finds Divisibility of Harm Defense Not Applicable to Oil Emulsion Containing Heavy Metals and PCBs United States v. Alcan Aluminum Corporation, ___F.3d___, Case NO. No. 01-6008 (2nd Cir. Jan. 7, 2003). | |
January 2003: Court of Appeals: Fifth Circuit Decides CERCLA Contribution Claims Can Be Brought even where No Cost Recovery Action Is Pending Aviall Services, Inc. v. Cooper Industries, Inc. ___F.3d___, Case No. 0010197P (5th Cir. Nov. 14, 2002). | |
January 2003: District Court Finds that Consent Decree Bars Subsequent Claim for Recovery under CERCLA Asserted by a Potentially Responsible Party In Re: Voluntary Purchasing Groups, Inc. Litigation ___F.Supp.2d___, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22643 (N.D. Texas Nov. 22, 2002). | |
January 2003: Ninth Circuit Finds Intervention Untimely in Landfill Contamination Case California Department of Toxic Substances Control, et al v. Commercial Realty Projects, Inc., et al., 309 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. Oct. 25, 2002). | |
January 2003: District Court Upholds "Substantial Continuity" Test for CERCLA Corporate Successor Liability Pennsylvania v. Concept Sciences Inc. ___F.Supp.2d___, Case No. 02-2888 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 2, 2002). | |
October 2002: Ninth Circuit Affirms that the United States is Liable for Wartime Pollution in California Cadillac Fairview/California, Inc. v. Dow Chem. Co. ___F.3d___,Case No. 99-56641 (9th Cir.Aug.6,2002). | |
August 2002: D.C. Circuit Rejects Chem-Nuclear's Request for Reimbursement of CERCLA Remediation Costs Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc. et al. v. Bush et al., ___F.3d___, Case No.01-5184 (D.C.Cir.June 11,2002). |
|
|
Collateral Estoppel |
|
|
|
Commencement Bay Nearshore Tideflats Site |
|
|
|
Consent Decree |
|
January 2010: District Court Confirms that a Party to a CERCLA Consent Decree Is Not Subject to a Cross Complaint for Contribution Frontier Communications Corp. v. Barrett Paving Materials, Inc., ___F. Supp.2d___ 1:07-CV-00113-GZS (D. ME. 2009) | |
January 2010: District Court Finds a Party Subject to a CERCLA Section 106 Order Is Limited to a Section 113 Claim Appleton Papers Inc. and NCR Corp. v. George A. Whiting Paper Co., ___F.Supp.2d___ 08-CV-00016-WCG (E.D. Wis. Nov. 18, 2009) | |
December 2009: District Court Finds Ford Allowed Cleanup Recovery Pursuant to a Corrective Action Consent Order under CERCLA Section Ford Motor Company v. Michigan Consolidated Gas Company, ___F. Supp.2d___ 08-CV-13503-DT (E.D. Mich. 2009) | |
March 2009: District Court Exercises Continuing Jurisdiction over Consent Decree to Oversee Groundwater Treatment Permit Conditions Pursuant to CERCLA New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, et al., v. Gloucester Environmental Management Services, Inc., v. Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. et al., ___F. Supp.2d___ 84-0152, 92-3860 (D. N.J. Dec. 17, 2008) | |
March 2008: District Court Addresses Allocation of Recovery Proceeds Received by PRP in Determining Proper Credit Due Defendants in PRP’s CERCLA Contribution Claim Friedland v. TIC-The Industrial Company, ___ F.Supp.2d___ 04-cv-01263 (D. Colo. Jan.18, 2008) | |
October 2006: District Court Finds a Party Incurring Costs under a CERCLA Consent Decree Cannot Pursue Claim for Contribution under § 107 Niagara Mohawk Power v. Consolidated Rail Corp.___F.Supp.2d___ 5.98-CV-1039 (N.D. N.Y. June 28, 2006) | |
April 2006: aaa aaa aaa | |
February 2006: Ninth Circuit Overturns District Court Decision to Reduce Defendants’ Obligations under CERCLA Consent Decree United States v. Asarco Inc., et al.___F.3d___ 04-35052, 04-35479 and 04-35106 (9th Cir. Dec. 5, 2005) | |
January 2005: Sixth Circuit Upholds District Court’s Dismissal of Citizen Lawsuits Precluded by EPA Consent Decrees Richard Ellis, et al. v. Gallatin Steel Co. and Harsco Corp., ___F.3d___ 02-6421, 6422, 6429, 6478 (6th Cir. Oct. 26, 2004) | |
January 2003: District Court Finds that Consent Decree Bars Subsequent Claim for Recovery under CERCLA Asserted by a Potentially Responsible Party In Re: Voluntary Purchasing Groups, Inc. Litigation ___F.Supp.2d___, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22643 (N.D. Texas Nov. 22, 2002). | |
March 2002: Eighth Circuit Holds that an Evidentiary Hearing Is Not Required to Approve a CERCLA Consent Decree United States v. BP Amoco Oil PLC ___F.3d ___,Case Nos.00-5179,00-5244 (6th Cir.Jan.4,2002) |
|
|
Constitutionality |
|
|
|
Contractual Liability |
|
|
|
Contribution |
|
February 2010: District Court Using Equitable Factors Dismisses Polluters’ Claims for Contribution Appleton Papers Inc. and NCR Corp., v. George A. Whiting Paper Co., et al.,___F.Supp.2d___ 08-C-16 (E.D. Wisc. Dec. 16, 2009) | |
October 2006: District Court Finds a Party Incurring Costs under a CERCLA Consent Decree Cannot Pursue Claim for Contribution under § 107 Niagara Mohawk Power v. Consolidated Rail Corp.___F.Supp.2d___ 5.98-CV-1039 (N.D. N.Y. June 28, 2006) | |
October 2005: District Court Applies Aviall and Dismisses All CERCLA Claims by One Potentially Responsible Party against Another Kaladish v. Uniroyal Holdings, Inc., ___F.Supp.2nd___ 3: 00 CV 854(CFD) (D. Conn. Aug. 9, 2005) | |
August 2005: Third Circuit Holds that District Court Erred by Referring to a Federal Magistrate the Issue of Response Cost Allocation under CERCLA Beazer East, Inc. v. The Mead Corporation, ___F.3d___ 02-3727/02-4185 (3rd Cir. June 23, 2005) | |
July 2004: District Court in New York Grants Motion by Third Party to Intervene in CERCLA Cost Recovery Action. United States v. City of Glen Cove, ___F.Supp.2d___ CV-03-4975 (TCP) (MLO) (E.D. N.Y April 29, 2004). | |
March 2004: District Court of New Jersey Denies Contribution Rights under CERCLA Absent CERCLA Enforcement Action. E.I.DuPont De Nemours and Co., et al. v. United State, ___F.Supp.2d___, Case No. 97-497 (WJM), (D. N.J. Dec. 2003). | |
March 2004: Sixth Circuit Finds the Equitable Nature of CERCLA Does Not Constitute Grounds for Reopening of Allocation Judgments Kalamazoo River Study Group v. Rockwell Intn’l Corp ___F.3d___, Case Nos. 01-2453, 02-2192 (6th Cir. Jan. 14, 2004). | |
November 2003: Failing to Cooperate with the EPA Proves Costly to Ohio Chemical Company United States of America v. Consolidation Coal Co., Triangle Wire & Cable, Inc., and Neville Chemical Co. ___F.3d___, Case No. 02-3308 (6th Cir. Sept. 26, 2003). | |
March 2003: Second Circuit Holds that Landowner Is Not a Discharger where Waste Originates with Neighbor and Merely Flows across Landowner's Property Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Jones Chemical, Inc., et al ___F.3d___, Case No. 01-7932 (2nd Cir. Jan. 7, 2003). | |
January 2003: Ninth Circuit Finds Intervention Untimely in Landfill Contamination Case California Department of Toxic Substances Control, et al v. Commercial Realty Projects, Inc., et al., 309 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. Oct. 25, 2002). | |
October 2001: First Circuit Refuses to Raise the Bar for Proving CERCLA Contribution Claims United States v. William M. Davis, et al. ___F.3d___, Case Nos. 00-1234, 001342, 00-1343, 00-1344, 001345, 00-1399, 00-1400, 00-1401, 00-1402, 00-1403 and 00-1404 (1st Cir. Aug. 17, 2001). |
|
|
Contribution Actions |
|
January 2010: District Court Confirms that a Party to a CERCLA Consent Decree Is Not Subject to a Cross Complaint for Contribution Frontier Communications Corp. v. Barrett Paving Materials, Inc., ___F. Supp.2d___ 1:07-CV-00113-GZS (D. ME. 2009) | |
January 2010: Prohibition of Pre-Enforcement Review Lives On— District Court Finds Plaintiffs Challenging U.S. EPA Remedy Barred by CERCLA Section 133(H) Long v. Tennessee Valley Authority, ___F.Supp.2d___ 3:09-CV-114 (E.D. Tenn. Nov. 9, 2009) | |
January 2010: District Court Finds a Party Subject to a CERCLA Section 106 Order Is Limited to a Section 113 Claim Appleton Papers Inc. and NCR Corp. v. George A. Whiting Paper Co., ___F.Supp.2d___ 08-CV-00016-WCG (E.D. Wis. Nov. 18, 2009) | |
January 2010: Tenth Circuit Finds Union Pacific’s CERCLA Contribution Right Is Sufficient for Intervention U.S. and State of Oklahoma v. Albert Investment Company, ___F.3d___ 08-6267 (10th Cir. Nov. 10, 2009) | |
December 2009: District Court Finds a Responsible Party May Not Seek Contribution for Non-CERCLA Judgments— Government May Be an ‘Arranger’ for Activity that Released Hazardous Substances U.S. v. Washington State Department of Transportation, ___F.Supp.2d___ C08-5722RJB (W.D. WA. 2009) | |
December 2008: District Court Holds CERCLA Third-Party Contribution Claim Allowed as Stemming from Action under Section 9607 Port of Tacoma v. Todd Shipyards Corporation, ___F.Supp.2d___ C08-5132BHS (W.D. Wash. Sept. 30, 2008) | |
October 2008: District Court Dismisses CERCLA Section 107 Claim Noting that Section 113 Was Defendant’s Exclusive Remedy Appleton Papers Inc., NCR Corp., v. George A. Whiting Paper Co., ___F.Supp.2d___ (E.D. Wis. Aug. 20, 2008) | |
July 2008: Third Circuit Holds CERCLA 113(F)’s ‘Civil Action’ Requirement Is an Element of a Contribution Claim and Not a Question of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction Beazer East Inc. v. The Mead Corp., ___F.3d___ 06-4993 (3rd Cir. May 13, 2008) | |
June 2008: Ninth Circuit Applies Supreme Court Decision in Atlantic Research, Reverses Itself in Pinal Creek, Allows Cost Recovery Claims Under CERCLA Section 107(a) Kotrous v. Goss-Jewett Company, ___F.3d___ 06-15162, 06-16019 (9th Cir. April 17, 2008) | |
June 2008: District Court Holds Settlement with EPA for Sludge Contaminated Groundwater May Provide Basis for Contribution under CERCLA Section 113 Champion Laboratories, Inc. v. Metex Corp. 02-5284, unpublished opinion (D. N.J. 2008) | |
March 2008: District Court Addresses Allocation of Recovery Proceeds Received by PRP in Determining Proper Credit Due Defendants in PRP’s CERCLA Contribution Claim Friedland v. TIC-The Industrial Company, ___ F.Supp.2d___ 04-cv-01263 (D. Colo. Jan.18, 2008) | |
January 2008: In CERCLA Action to Declare Liability Where No Response Costs Have Been Incurred, District Court Dismisses Section 113 Claim but Permits Section 107 Claim Reichhold, Inc. v. U.S. Metal Refining Company, ___F.Supp.2d___ 03-453 (D. N.J. Nov. 15, 2007) | |
July 2007: District Court Holds that a Contribution Claim under State Law Is Precluded by CERCLA Conflict Preemption N. Y. State Electric & Gas Corp. v. FirstEnergy Corp., ___F.Supp.2d___ 3:03-CV-0438 (N.D. NY May 11, 2007) | |
June 2007: District Court Finds a Party May Depose Opposing Counsel in a CERCLA Contribution Action where Counsel Drafted the Response to EPA Request Raytheon Aircraft Co. v. U.S., ___F.Supp.2d___ 05-2328 (D. Kan. April 13, 2007) | |
May 2007: District Court Holds a Potentially Responsible Party Can Sue for Contribution under CERCLA §107 Emhart Indus. v. New Eng. Container Co., ___F.Supp.2d___ 06-218S (D. R.I. March 20, 2007) | |
April 2007: District Court Limits Private PRPs’ Right to CERCLA Contribution against other PRPs Differential Development-1994, Ltd. v. Harkrider Distributing Co., ___F.Supp.2d___ H-05-3375 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 9, 2007.) | |
February 2007: Eighth Circuit Finds Contribution for CERCLA Liability Depends on Substantial Continuity Test K.C. 1986 Limited Partnership v. Reade Manufacturing, et al., ___F.3d___ 05-2064, 06-1944, 05-2068 (8th Cir. Jan. 4, 2007) | |
November 2006: Third Circuit Rejects Appeal of CERCLA Contribution Claim as Premature because Dismissal Order Was Not a ‘Final Decision’ Morton Int’l. Inc. v. A.E. Stanley Mfg. Co., ___F.3d ___ 04-3936 (3rd. Cir. Aug. 18, 2006) | |
October 2006: A Polluter that Voluntarily Initiates Clean-Up Cannot Later Seek CERCLA Contribution from the Federal Government E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co v. United States,___F.3d___ 04-2096, (3rd Cir. Aug. 29, 2006) | |
August 2006: District Court Confirms Implied Right to Contribution under CERCLA Section 107 for Cleanup Raytheon Aircraft Co. v. United States, ___ F.Supp.2d ___ 05-2328 (D. Kan. May 26, 2006) | |
April 2006: aaa aaa aaa | |
April 2006: aaa aaa aaa | |
February 2006: Ninth Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment Denying Recovery of Cleanup Costs under CERCLA for Failure to Substantially Comply with the National Contingency Plan Carson Harbor Village, Ltd. v. County of Los Angles et al., ___F.3d___ 04-55024 (9th Cir. Jan. 12, 2006) | |
December 2005: District Court Refuses to Reconsider Cost Recovery Judgment Despite Supreme Court Decision in Cooper Industries Gencorp., Inc. v. Olin Corporation, ___F.Supp.2d___ 1:93 Cv 2269 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 3, 2005) | |
September 2005: District Court Finds Supreme Court’s Cooper Decision Bars CERCLA Cost Recovery Claims by One Private Party against Another CadleRock Properties Joint Venture, L.P. v. Schilberg, ___F.Supp.2d___ 3:01CV896 (D. Conn. July 18, 2005) | |
July 2005: District Court in New York Finds that Settlement under State Hazardous Waste Laws Does Not Provide Right to Contribution under CERCLA W.R. Grace & Co. v. Zotos International Inc., ___F.Supp.2d___ 98-CV-383, (W.D. N.Y. May 3, 2005) | |
April 2005: District Court in New York Refuses to Contradict the Supreme Court’s Decision on CERCLA Contribution Claims Elementis Chemicals Inc. v. T. H. Agriculture and Nutrition, LLC, ___F.Supp.2d___ 03 CV 5150 (S.D. N.Y. Jan. 31, 2005) | |
February 2005: Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Aviall Services, Inc. (Or: How I Stopped Worrying and Learned to Read the SARA Amendments) | |
November 2004: Landfill Operator Loses All Claims in Contribution Due to Lapsed Statute of Limitations under CERCLA Schaeffer v. Town of Victor, ___F.Supp.2d___ 99-CD-6010 (W.D. N.Y. Sept. 23, 2004) | |
October 2004: First Circuit Allows Prejudgment Interest in CERCLA Section 113 Contribution Action American Cyanamid Company v. Capuano, ___F.3d___ 03-2143 (1st Cir. Aug. 18, 2004) | |
May 2004: Ninth Circuit Holds that Plaintiff in a Contribution Suit under CERCLA Bears Burden of Proving Exclusion of Orphan Shares The Boeing Company v. North West Steel Rolling Mills, Inc. ___F.3d___, Case No. 97-35973 (9th Cir. March 17, 2004). | |
April 2004: District Court Finds Rhode Island Law Protects Superfund Debtor from Contribution Liability Rohm & Haas Company v. Capuano ___F.Supp.2d___, Case No. 02-521S (D.R.I. Feb. 3, 2004). | |
February 2004: District Court Allows Co-PRP to Pursue CERCLA § 107 Claim with Respect to Portion of Site with Divisible Harm Durham Manufacturing Company v. Merriam Manufacturing Company ___F. Supp.2d___, Case No. 3:99cv2583 (GLG)(D. Conn. Dec. 17, 2003). | |
February 2004: District Court Holds that Liability Insurer Does Not Qualify as an Innocent Party under CERCLA California Dep’t of Toxic Substances Control v. City of Chico ___F.Supp.2d___, Case No. Civ. S-02-442 LKK/DAD (E.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2004). | |
November 2003: District Court Holds that Contribution Protection under CERCLA May Extend beyond Immediate Case Alcan Aluminum Corporation v. Butler Aviation- Boston, Inc. ___F.Supp.2d___, Case No. 3: CV-02- 0562 (M.D. Penn. Sept. 19, 2003). | |
October 2003: Eighth Circuit Turns Deaf Ear to Innocent Owner Arguments Dico, Inc. v. Amoco Oil Co., et al. ___F.3d___, Case No. 02-2989 (8th Cir. Aug. 14, 2003). | |
September 2003: District Court Approves Relaxed Burden of Proof for CERCLA Plaintiffs Castaic Lake Water Agency v. Whittaker Corp. ___F.Supp.2d___, Case No. CV 00-12613 AHM (RZx), (C.D. Cal. July 15, 2003). | |
April 2003: Ninth Circuit Reverses Summary Judgment for Landowner in Cost Recovery Case Based on Doubtful Circumstantial Evidence California v. Campbell ___F.3d___, Case No. 01-16397 (9th Cir. Feb. 14, 2003). | |
March 2003: Maryland District Court Makes It Easier to Bring Suit Under CERCLA 1325 "G" Street Associates v. Rockwood Pigments NA, ___F.Supp.2d___, Case No. DKC 2002-1622 (D. Md. Dec. 20, 2002) | |
March 2003: Indiana District Court Declines to Apply CERCLA's Contribution and Jurisdictional Bars to Landowner's State Law Cost Recovery Action Taylor Farm Limited Liability Company v. Viacom Inc ___F.Supp.2d___, Case No. IP01-1734 C-M/S (S.D. Ind. Dec. 24, 2002). | |
January 2003: Court of Appeals: Fifth Circuit Decides CERCLA Contribution Claims Can Be Brought even where No Cost Recovery Action Is Pending Aviall Services, Inc. v. Cooper Industries, Inc. ___F.3d___, Case No. 0010197P (5th Cir. Nov. 14, 2002). | |
January 2003: District Court Finds that Consent Decree Bars Subsequent Claim for Recovery under CERCLA Asserted by a Potentially Responsible Party In Re: Voluntary Purchasing Groups, Inc. Litigation ___F.Supp.2d___, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22643 (N.D. Texas Nov. 22, 2002). | |
November 2002: District Court Upholds CERCLA's Rarely Successful "Useful Product" Defense State of New York v. Solvent Chemical Company Inc ___F.Supp.2d___, Case No. 83-CV-1401-C (W.D. N.Y. 2002) | |
October 2002: Tenth Circuit Finds that CERCLA PRP Can Proceed with Cost-contribution Claim against Another PRP because It Was Operating under the Direction of a State Agency Morrison Enterprises v. McShares, Inc., ___F.3d___,Case Nos.98-3219 &98-3229 (10th Cir.Aug.1,2002). | |
October 2001: Fifth Circuit Bars CERCLA Contribution Claim in Absence of Prior CERCLA Action against Plaintiff Aviall Services, Inc. v. Cooper Industries, Inc. ___F.3d___, Case No. 00-10197 (5th Cir. Aug. 14, 2001). |
|
|
Corporate Liability |
|
|
|
Cost Recovery |
|
April 2009: District Court Extends Rule Limiting Depositions of Current High Ranking Government Officials to Include Former Officials | |
August 2008: Non-Settling Parties Fail to Upset Consent Decree Regarding Penobscot River to Proof on Site City of Bangor v. Citizens Communication Company, ___F.3d___ 07-2193, 07-2255, 07-2759, 07-2777 (1st Cir. July 9, 2008) | |
June 2008: Ninth Circuit Applies Supreme Court Decision in Atlantic Research, Reverses Itself in Pinal Creek, Allows Cost Recovery Claims Under CERCLA Section 107(a) Kotrous v. Goss-Jewett Company, ___F.3d___ 06-15162, 06-16019 (9th Cir. April 17, 2008) | |
April 2008: EPA’s Cost Recovery Counterclaim Filed after Cleanup Completion Appropriate under CERCLA Interpretation or as Exercise of Discretion under Federal Civil Procedure Raytheon Aircraft Co. v. U.S., ___F.Supp.2d___ 05-2328-JWL (D. Kan. Feb. 8, 2008) | |
March 2008: Bankruptcy Court Finds Purchaser of Bankrupt Entity’s Assets Assumed the Associated CERCLA Liabilities In re Safety-Kleen Corp., ___B.R.___, Bankruptcy 00-02303(PJW), Adversary No. 05-50474(PJW) (Bkrpt. D. Del. Jan. 3, 2008) | |
March 2008: District Court Holds Action Based on Late Discovery of TCE Is Barred by Statute of Limitations Applicable to Remedial Action Based on Different TCE Source on Same Property Douglas Autotech Corporation v. Scott Fetzer Company, ___F.Supp.2d___ 1:07-cv-1062 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 23, 2008) | |
January 2008: Ninth Circuit Holds Sellers of Lead Containing Materials to Processing Plant Operator Are ‘Arrangers’ under CERCLA California Department of Toxic Substances Control v. Alco Pacific, Inc., ___ F.3d___ 05-55962 (9th Cir. Nov. 28, 2007) | |
December 2007: Sixth Circuit finds CERCLA Recovery under Section 107(a) Permissible Where PRP Has Incurred Cleanup Costs ITT Industries, Inc. v. BorgWarner, Inc., ___F.3d___ 06-2393 (6th Cir. Oct. 18, 2007) | |
November 2007: District Court Holds that a Plaintiff Need Not Satisfy the Notice Requirements of CERCLA Section 310 in Order to Bring a Section 107 Claim Innis Arden Golf Club v. Pitney Bowles, Inc. et al., ___F.Supp.2d___ 3:06cv1352 (D. Conn. Sept. 28, 2007) | |
August 2007: U.S. Supreme Court Allows Cost Recovery by PRPs under CECLA Section 107(A) and Clarifies Differences with Section 113(F) Contribution Claims U.S. v. Atlantic Research Corp., ___U.S.___ 127 S.Ct. 2331 (2007) | |
July 2007: U.S. Supreme Court Unanimously Affirms Cost Recovery under CERCLA Section 107 in Case Where PRPs Voluntarily Cleaned Up Contaminated Soil and Groundwater Site U.S. v. Atlantic Research Corporation, 551 U.S.___ 06-562Case (June 11, 2007) | |
June 2007: Partial Success Means Partial Recovery: District Court Provides an Analytical Framework for Cost Recovery Claims Citizens Against Pollution v. Ohio Power Company, ___F.Supp.2d___ C2-04-CV-3712007 (S.D. Ohio April 12, 2007) | |
May 2007: District Court Distinguishes Third Circuit Precedent— Holds Federal Government May Pursue Cost Recovery Action under § 107 Despite Federal Agencies Status as PRP U.S. v. Simon Wrecking, Inc., ___F.Supp.2d___ 06-928 (E.D. Penn. March 14, 2007) | |
April 2007: District Court Rules that CERCLA Does Not Preempt State Common Law Claims for Cost Recovery New York v. Ametek, Inc., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ 05 CIV.2186 (S.D. N.Y. Jan. 18, 2007) | |
October 2006: District Court Finds a Party Incurring Costs under a CERCLA Consent Decree Cannot Pursue Claim for Contribution under § 107 Niagara Mohawk Power v. Consolidated Rail Corp.___F.Supp.2d___ 5.98-CV-1039 (N.D. N.Y. June 28, 2006) | |
December 2005: District Court Refuses to Reconsider Cost Recovery Judgment Despite Supreme Court Decision in Cooper Industries Gencorp., Inc. v. Olin Corporation, ___F.Supp.2d___ 1:93 Cv 2269 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 3, 2005) | |
November 2005: Second Circuit Holds CERCLA Liable Party May Sue under Section 107(a) for Response Costs Incurred Voluntarily Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc. v. UGI Utilities, Inc., ___F.3d___ 04-2409-cv (2nd Cir. Sept. 9, 2005) | |
October 2005: District Court Finds a Party May Seek Indemnification from Other PRPs Pursuant to CERCLA § 107(a) if § 113(f) Recovery Is Unavailable Viacom, Inc. v. United States of America, ___F.Supp.2d___ 05-0468 (D. D.C. July 19, 2005) | |
October 2005: District Court Applies Aviall and Dismisses All CERCLA Claims by One Potentially Responsible Party against Another Kaladish v. Uniroyal Holdings, Inc., ___F.Supp.2nd___ 3: 00 CV 854(CFD) (D. Conn. Aug. 9, 2005) | |
September 2005: Fifth Circuit Finds CERCLA’s Federally Required Commencement Date Does Not Preempt a Texas Statute of Repose Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Company v. Skinner Tank Company, ___F.3d___ 04-11217 (5th Cir. July 28, 2005) | |
July 2005: Second Circuit Holds Claims against the Federal Government Relating to Military Contamination Were Time-Barred and Sought Improper Response Costs Syms v. Olin Corporation, ___F.3d___ 03-6234 (2nd Cir. May 18, 2005) | |
March 2005: Tenth Circuit Rejects CERCLA Investigative Response Cost Claims in the Absence of an Actual Cleanup Young, et al. v. United States, ___F.3d___ 02-7133 (10th Cir. Jan. 4, 2005) | |
March 2005: District Court Finds Defendant Utility Contractor Who Released Hazardous Substances Was Not an “Operator” under CERCLA §107(a)(2) U.S. v. QWEST Corp., ___F.Supp.2d___ 2005 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 1399 (D. Minn. Jan. 24, 2005) | |
February 2005: Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Aviall Services, Inc. (Or: How I Stopped Worrying and Learned to Read the SARA Amendments) | |
July 2004: District Court Holds Review of State Response Limited to Administrative Record under CERCLA. State of California Department of Toxic Substances Control v. Alco Pacific, Inc., ___F.Supp.2d___ CV 01-9294 SJO (FMOx) (C.D. Cal. May 7, 2004). | |
July 2004: Eleventh Circuit Reverses Dismissal of Cost Recovery Action Based on Language of Settlement Agreement Rather than Traditional Res Judicata. Norfolk Southern Corp. v. Chevron, ___F.3d___ 03-14473 (11th Cir. June 3, 2004). | |
May 2004: District Court: District Court Declines to Dismiss Landowner’s Cost Recovery Claim under CERCLA Section 107 Soo Line Railroad Company v. Ashland, Inc ___F.Supp.2d___, Case No. 01-1628 ADM/AJB (D. Minn. March 16, 2004). | |
April 2004: Federal Magistrate Concludes that City is a Potentially Responsible Party because of Its Role in Constructing and Operating a Sewer Drain System City of Bangor v. Citizens Communications Company ___F.Supp.2d___, Case No. 02-183-B-S (D. Maine March 11, 2004). | |
April 2004: Ninth Circuit Holds that Cost Recovery under CERCLA Begins to Run with Adoption of Final Remedial Action Plan California v. Neville Chemical Company ___F.3d___, Case No. 02-56506 (9th Cir. Feb. 10, 2004). |
|
|
Criminal and Civil Liability |
|
May 2005: Recent Investigations, Settlements, Penalties and Sanctions | |
December 2004: Recent Investigations, Settlements, Penalties and Sanctions | |
July 2004: Recent Investigations, Settlements, Penalties and Sanctions. | |
May 2004: Complying More Cheaply—Reducing the Expense of Environmental Penalties and Fines | |
May 2004: Recent Investigations, Settlements, Penalties and Sanctions | |
February 2004: Recent Investigations, Settlements, Penalties and Sanctions |
|
|
Criminal Enforcement Actions |
|
December 2009: Recent Investigations, Settlements, Penalties and Sanctions | |
April 2009: Recent Investigations, Settlements, Penalties and Sanctions | |
February 2009: Recent Investigations, Settlements, Penalties and Sanctions | |
October 2008: Recent Investigations, Settlements, Penalties and Sanctions | |
April 2006: aaa aaa aaa | |
November 2005: Recent Investigations,Settlements, Penalties and Sanction |
|
|
Cyprus Foote Mineral Company Lithium Ore Processing Facility Superfund Site |
|
|
|
Damages and Damage Awards |
|
|
|
Davisville Naval Construction Battaliion Center Superfund Site |
|
|
|
Definitions |
|
June 2007: District Court Holds Asbestos Building Materials, Left Intact within the Structure, Do Not Constitute Disposed Materials under CERCLA or Solid Waste under RCRA Sycamore Industrial Park Associates v. Ericsson, Inc., ___F.Supp.2d___ 06 C 0768 (N.D. Ill., Mar. 30, 2007) | |
May 2007: District Court Holds that Temporary, “Straw-Man” Ownership Does Not Make One an “Owner” for Purposes of CERCLA Liability AmeriPride Services, Inc. v. Valley Industrial Service, Inc., ___F.Supp.2d___ CIV S-00-113 LLK/ JFM (E.D. Cal. Feb. 28, 2007) |
October 2006: Ninth Circuit Upholds EPA Unilateral Order Mandating CERCLA RI/FS Regarding Releases to Columbia River Originating from Canadian Disposal Site Pakootas et al. v. Teck Cominco Metals, Ltd., 452 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2006) | |
June 2006: Second Circuit Says Definition of ‘Operator’ under CERCLA Is a Question for the Trier of Fact AMW Material Testing, Inc. v. Town of Babylon, ___F.3d___ 05-0206 (2nd Cir. March 28, 2006) | |
February 2006: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Issues Final Rule Defining ‘All Appropriate Inquiry’ | |
September 2005: District Court Finds Supreme Court’s Cooper Decision Bars CERCLA Cost Recovery Claims by One Private Party against Another CadleRock Properties Joint Venture, L.P. v. Schilberg, ___F.Supp.2d___ 3:01CV896 (D. Conn. July 18, 2005) | |
March 2005: District Court Finds Defendant Utility Contractor Who Released Hazardous Substances Was Not an “Operator” under CERCLA §107(a)(2) U.S. v. QWEST Corp., ___F.Supp.2d___ 2005 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 1399 (D. Minn. Jan. 24, 2005) | |
December 2004: Sierra Club Makes Oklahoma Pig Farm Squeal in CERCLA Ammonia-Emission Suit Sierra Club v. Seaboard Farms Inc., ___F.3d__ O3-6104 (10th Cir. Oct. 28, 2004) | |
September 2004: Minnesota District Court Finds Response Action by Private Party Not a “Removal” Pursuant to CERCLA. Jostens, Inc. v. Vopak, Inc., et al., ___F.Supp.2d___ 02-3761 (D. Minn. July, 28, 2004) | |
December 2003: District Court of Rhode Island Declines to Apply Retroactively the 2001 Amendments to CERCLA Innocent Landowner Defense United States v. Domenic Lombardi Realty, Inc. ___F.Supp.2d____, Case No. C.A. No. 98-591S (D. R.I. Oct. 17, 2003). | |
November 2003: Second Circuit Holds Cleanup Of New York City Post Office Anthrax Not An Emergency Removal Under Cercla APWU v. Potter ___F.3d___, Case No. 02-56186 (2nd Cir. Sept. 15, 2003). |
|
|
Diamond Alkali Site |
|
|
|
Discovery |
|
|
|
Divisibility Defense |
|
|
|
Doctrine of Divisibility |
|
|
|
Doctrine of Equitable Conversion |
|
|
|
Double Eagle Site |
|
|
|
Drinking Water |
|
|
|
Due Process |
|
|
|
DuPont Newport Superfund Site |
|
|
|
Duty to Preserve Evidence |
|
|
|
Ethylene Glycol |
|
|
|
Eureka Mills Superfund Site |
|
|
|
Expert Witnesses |
|
|
|
Facility |
|
|
|
Federal Discovery Rule |
|
|
|
Federal Government Operator Liability |
|
|
|
Federal Magistrates |
|
|
|
Federal Removal Jurisdiction |
|
|
|
Ferric Ferrocyanide |
|
|
|
Fixtures |
|
|
|
Foreign Defendants |
|
|
|
General |
|
October 2004: Puerto Rico Federal District Court Finds Individual Liable under Both CERCLA and RCRA United States v. JG-24, Jorge Ortiz, et al., ___F.Supp.2d___ Civ. 00-1483 (D. P.R. Aug. 12, 2004) | |
January 2003: Claims Court: Federal Claims Court Renders Indemnification Clause in War-Time Contract Invalid E.I. DuPont De Nemours and Company, Inc. v. United States of America, Case No. 99-101 C (U.S. Court of Fed. Claims Nov. 13, 2002). | |
May 2002: President Bush Signs into Law CERCLA Amendments Designed to Provide Some New Relief for Small Business and Innocent Landowners | |
May 2002: Eleventh Circuit Affirms Dismissal of FTCA Claim for Damages Related to Soil and Groundwater Contamination OSI, Inc. v. United States ___F.3d___, Case No. 01-13032 (11th Cir. March 12, 2002). | |
July 2001: Criminal Liability Is Increasing for Environmental Managers | |
June 2001: Eighth Circuit Reverses Judgment on Issue of Divisibility of Harm Under CERCLA United States of America v. Hercules, Inc. ___F.3d___,Case No.99-3684 (8th Cir. April 10, 2001) | |
June 2001: Seventh Circuit Affirms Dismissal of EPA's Request for a Court Order Seeking Both Access to, and Remediation of, Private Property United States v. Tarkowski ___F.3d___,Case Nos.00-2393 &00-2473 (7th Cir. April 14, 2001) | |
April 2001: Sixth Circuit Holds Party that Failed To Act with Due Care To Stop Contamination from Migrating Not an Innocent Landowner Franklin County Convention Facilities Authority v. American Premier Underwriters Inc. ___ F.3d ___, Case No. 99-4095 (6th Cir. Feb. 13, 2001) |
February 2001: California Supreme Court Declines to Review Court of Appeal's Decision Invalidating The Monterey Agreement EIR Planning and Conservation League v. Department of Water Resources, 83 Cal.App.4th 892 (Sept. 15, 2000) pet. for Reh Denied Cal.Sup.Ct., (Dec. 13, 2000) | |
February 2001: Arizona Court Finds Feces Not a "contaminant" or "irritant" for Purposes of the Absolute Pollution Exclusion Clause Keggi v. Northbrook Property and Casualty Insurance Company ___Az.App.___, 13 P.3d 785;2000 LEXIS 173 (Ariz. Dec. 5, 2000) |
|
|
Gloucester Environmental Management Services, Inc. Superfund Site |
|
|
|
High Yield Superfund Site |
|
|
|
Imminent Endangerment |
|
|
|
Immunity |
|
|
|
Implied Right to Contribution |
|
|
|
Indemnity Clauses |
|
|
|
Indian Tribes |
|
|
|
INDIPAY Software |
|
|
|
Injunctions |
|
|
|
Innocent Land Owners |
|
November 2004: District Court Holds that Amendments to CERCLA’S Innocent Landowner Defense Do Not Apply Retroactively 1325 “G” Street Associates v. Rockwood Pigments, ___F.Supp.2d___ DKC 2002-1622 (D. Md.Sept. 7, 2004). | |
September 2004: New York District CourtDeclines to Dismiss Landowner’s Action under § 107 of CERCLA because Owner Might Qualify for the “Third Party” or “Innocent Purchaser” Defense Emerson Enterprises, LLC v. Kenneth Crosby Acquisition Corp.,___F.Supp.2d___ 03-CV-6530 CJS (W.D. N.Y. June 23, 2004) | |
July 2004: District Court Finds Failure to Conduct All Appropriate Inquiry Costs PRP Innocent Purchaser Status. XDP Inc. v. Watumull Properties Corp. v. Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation, et al., ___F.Supp.2d___ Civ. 99-1703-AS (D. Or. 2004). | |
April 2004: The Ninth Circuit Upholds Preponderance of Evidence Standard and Rejects Broad Innocent Landowner Defense in CERCLA Action Western Properties Service Corp. v. Shell Oil Company et al. ___F.3d___, Case No. 01-55676 (9th Cir. Feb. 13, 2004). | |
April 2004: Fifth Circuit Finds Investigation and Remediation Costs Subject to Reimbursement under Indemnity of Property Damage Olin Corp. v. Caddo Bossier Parishes Port Commission ___F.3d___, Case No. 03-30314 (5th Cir. Feb. 20, 2004). | |
December 2003: District Court of Rhode Island Declines to Apply Retroactively the 2001 Amendments to CERCLA Innocent Landowner Defense United States v. Domenic Lombardi Realty, Inc. ___F.Supp.2d____, Case No. C.A. No. 98-591S (D. R.I. Oct. 17, 2003). |
|
|
Insurance |
|
|
|
Insurer Liability |
|
|
|
Investigative Costs |
|
|
|
Joinder |
|
|
|
Joint and Several Liability |
|
October 2009: District Court Applies Burlington Northern, Holds Defendant’s Liability from Its Contribution to a Defective Commingled Product Is Merely Several In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether Products Liability Litigation, 00 MDL 1898 (SAS), ___F.Supp.2d___ 04 Civ. 3417 (SAS) (S.D. NY July 14, 2009) | |
July 2009: U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Joint and Several Liability Where a Reasonable Basis for Apportionment Exists, and Limits Arranger Liability Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. et al. v. U.S., et al., ___U.S. ___ 03-17125 (May 4, 2009) | |
June 2009: U.S. Supreme Court Limits CERCLA Arranger Liability and Eliminates Presumption of Joint and Several Liability in Section 107 Actions | |
May 2002: Defendant Held Jointly and Severally Liable for All Removal Costs where Several Chemicals Caused a "Single Harm" United States v. Agway, Inc. Case ___F.Supp.2d___, Case No. 1:99-CV-708 (FJS/GJD) (N.D. N.Y. March 28, 2002). |
|
|
Jurisdiction |
|
October 2009: District Court Finds that Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation Are Not ‘Persons’ under CERCLA Pakootas v. Teck Cominco Metals, Ltd., ___F. Supp.2d___ CV-04-256-LRS, (E.D. Wash. 2009) | |
November 2008: Tenth Circuit Holds CERCLA’s Jurisdictional Bar for Ongoing Removal Actions Prohibits Injunctive Relief under the SWDA Cannon v. Gates, ___F.3d___ 07-4107 (10th Cir. Aug. 26, 2008) | |
May 2008: District Court Affirms CERCLA Section 113’s Denial of Federal Court Jurisdiction to Hear Challenges to CERCLA Removal Actions—Plaintiff’s RCRA Claims Dismissed Wason Ranch Corporation v. Hecla Mining Company et al., ___F.Supp.2d___ 07-cv-00267 (D. Colo. March 31, 2008) | |
December 2007: Seventh Circuit Rules CERCLA Section 113(H) Prohibits Citizen Suits Challenging Transfers of Federally Owned Superfund Property Pollack v. U.S. Dept. of Defense, ___F.3d___ 07-1104 (7th Cir. Oct. 18, 2007) | |
November 2007: District Court Holds that a Plaintiff Need Not Satisfy the Notice Requirements of CERCLA Section 310 in Order to Bring a Section 107 Claim Innis Arden Golf Club v. Pitney Bowles, Inc. et al., ___F.Supp.2d___ 3:06cv1352 (D. Conn. Sept. 28, 2007) | |
August 2006: Litigant’s Failure to Explicitly Raise an Issue Before the District Court Is Foreclosed from Raising the Issue for the First Time on Appeal Esso Standard Oil Company v. Carlos E. Rodriguez-Perez, ___F.3d___ 05-1722 (1st Cir. June 14, 2006) | |
January 2005: District Court in Washington Holds that CERCLA Applies to Pollution Originating in Canada that Migrates by River into the United States Pakootas v. Teck Cominco Metals, Ltd., ___F.Supp.2d___ CV-04-256-AAM (E.D. Wash. Nov. 8, 2004) | |
April 2003: D.C. District Court Dismisses Inverse Condemnation Action because of CERCLA Jurisdictional Bar Jach v. American University and United States ___F.3d___, Case No. 02-1580 (ESH) (D. D.C. Feb. 20, 2003). |
|
|
Jury Instructions |
|
|
|
Jury Trials |
|
|
|
Kramer Superfund Site |
|
|
|
Land Use Covenants |
|
|
|
Lead |
|
October 2006: Ninth Circuit Upholds EPA Unilateral Order Mandating CERCLA RI/FS Regarding Releases to Columbia River Originating from Canadian Disposal Site Pakootas et al. v. Teck Cominco Metals, Ltd., 452 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2006) | |
November 2005: Fifth Circuit Finds Environmental Insurer Must Indemnify Insured for EPA-CERCLA Response Costs International Insurance Co. v. RSR Corporation, et al., ___F.3d___ 04-10311 (5th Cir. Sept. 19, 2005) | |
March 2005: Tenth Circuit Rejects CERCLA Investigative Response Cost Claims in the Absence of an Actual Cleanup Young, et al. v. United States, ___F.3d___ 02-7133 (10th Cir. Jan. 4, 2005) | |
July 2004: District Court Holds Review of State Response Limited to Administrative Record under CERCLA. State of California Department of Toxic Substances Control v. Alco Pacific, Inc., ___F.Supp.2d___ CV 01-9294 SJO (FMOx) (C.D. Cal. May 7, 2004). | |
November 2003: ASARCO and HECLA Mining Held Responsible for Majority of Cleanup Costs and Natural Resources Damages at Coeur D’Alene River Basin Coeur D’Alene Tribe v. ASARCO Incorporated, et al. ___F.Supp.2d___, Case Nos. CV 91-0342-N-EJL and CV96-0122-N-EJL (D. Id. Sept. 3, 2003). | |
July 2002: New Jersey District Court Rejects Divisibility of Costs Argument and Awards $6.7 Million to Federal Government United States v. Spaulding Composites Co., Inc. ___F.Supp.2d___, Case No. 94-5451 (D. N.J. May 12, 2002) |
|
|
Lender Liability |
|
|
|
Li Tungsten Superfund Site |
|
|
|
Malvern Superfund Site |
|
|
|
Matthiessen & Hegler Zinc Company Site |
|
|
|
McColl Superfund Site |
|
|
|
Mercury |
|
|
|
Metal Bank Superfund Site |
|
|
|
Military Pollution |
|
April 2008: Claims Court Finds U.S. Liable under World War II-Era Contracts for CERCLA Response Costs Incurred by Oil Companies Shell Oil Co. v. U.S., ___ F.Cl. ___ 06-141C (Fed. Cl. Feb. 8, 2008) | |
March 2006: District Court Holds State and Local Officials Are Entitled to Participate in the Selection of CERCLA Cleanups at Sites Formerly Owned by the United States City of Moses Lake v. United States, ___F.Supp.2d___ CV-04-0375-AAM, Doc. 181 (E.D. Wash. Dec. 30, 2005) | |
August 2005: Ninth Circuit Holds that CERCLA Does Not Apply to Contamination at Former Military Bases in the Philippines Arc Ecology v. U.S. Department of the Air Force, ___ F.3d ___ 04-15031 (9th Cir. June 15, 2005) | |
July 2005: Second Circuit Holds Claims against the Federal Government Relating to Military Contamination Were Time-Barred and Sought Improper Response Costs Syms v. Olin Corporation, ___F.3d___ 03-6234 (2nd Cir. May 18, 2005) | |
March 2005: Tenth Circuit Rejects CERCLA Investigative Response Cost Claims in the Absence of an Actual Cleanup Young, et al. v. United States, ___F.3d___ 02-7133 (10th Cir. Jan. 4, 2005) | |
May 2003: Legislation Introduced in Congress to Limit Environmental Obligations of the Department of Defense | |
October 2002: Ninth Circuit Affirms that the United States is Liable for Wartime Pollution in California Cadillac Fairview/California, Inc. v. Dow Chem. Co. ___F.3d___,Case No. 99-56641 (9th Cir.Aug.6,2002). |
|
|
Mining |
|
|
|
Mitigation of Damages |
|
|
|
Monetary Damages/Judgments |
|
|
|
Municipalities |
|
|
|
MUNIPAY Software |
|
|
|
National Contingency Plan |
|
January 2010: Prohibition of Pre-Enforcement Review Lives On— District Court Finds Plaintiffs Challenging U.S. EPA Remedy Barred by CERCLA Section 133(H) Long v. Tennessee Valley Authority, ___F.Supp.2d___ 3:09-CV-114 (E.D. Tenn. Nov. 9, 2009) |
January 2010: Following Jury Verdict on Common Law Counts, District Court Determines the Source of PCE Release and Response Costs under CERCLA Walnut Creek Manor v. Mayhew Center, LLC, ___F. Supp.2d___ 07-05664 CW (N.D. Cal. 2009) | |
May 2009: District Court Denies Aviall Remedial Investigation Costs under CERCLA 107(A) for Failure to Comply with Public Participation Requirements in National Contingency Plan Aviall Services, Inc. v. Cooper Industries, LLC, ___F. Supp.2d___ 3:97-CV-1926-D (N.D. Tex. Feb. 27, 2009) | |
October 2008: District Court Addresses CERCLA Notification— Holds Government Supervision May Be Insufficient to Sastisfy National Contingency Plan Aviall Services, Inc. v. Cooper Industries, LLC, ___ F.Supp.2d___ 3:97-cv-1926-D (N.D. Tex. Aug. 11, 2008) | |
June 2008: Second Circuit Denies Relief for those Allegedly Harmed By EPA’s Response to the ‘9/11’ Terrorist Attacks Benzman v. Whitman, ___F.3d___ 06-1166-cv, (L), 06-1346-cv (CON), 06-1454 (XAP) (2nd Cir. April 22, 2008) | |
February 2006: Ninth Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment Denying Recovery of Cleanup Costs under CERCLA for Failure to Substantially Comply with the National Contingency Plan Carson Harbor Village, Ltd. v. County of Los Angles et al., ___F.3d___ 04-55024 (9th Cir. Jan. 12, 2006) | |
April 2005: Ninth Circuit Affirms Judgment against Port in Negligence Per Se Claim Related to Environmental Cleanup The Port of Redwood City v. Gibson Envtl. Inc., ___F.3d___ 03-15662 (9th Cir. CFeb. 25, 2005) | |
March 2005: Tenth Circuit Rejects CERCLA Investigative Response Cost Claims in the Absence of an Actual Cleanup Young, et al. v. United States, ___F.3d___ 02-7133 (10th Cir. Jan. 4, 2005) | |
November 2003: Private Cercla Plaintiffs Must Demonstrate National Contingency Plan Consistency, Even For Smaller Site Cleanups | |
October 2002: Tenth Circuit Finds that CERCLA PRP Can Proceed with Cost-contribution Claim against Another PRP because It Was Operating under the Direction of a State Agency Morrison Enterprises v. McShares, Inc., ___F.3d___,Case Nos.98-3219 &98-3229 (10th Cir.Aug.1,2002). | |
November 2001: District Court: CERCLA'S Public Participation Requirements May Be Satisfied by Public Agency Involvement Norfolk S. Ry. Co. v. Gee Co. ___F.Supp.2d___, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12571 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 16, 2001). |
|
|
National Priorities List |
|
November 2008: District Court Rules that General Liability Insurers Have a Duty to Defend when Sudden and Accidental Nature of Release Is Ambiguous Industrial Enterprises, Inc. v. Penn America Insurance Co., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ RDB-07-2239 (D. Md. Sept. 2, 2008) | |
July 2007: U.S. Supreme Court to Decide whether Federal Claims Lacked Jurisdiction over Takings Claim Arising from Superfund Cleanup John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. U.S., U.S. S.Ct. 06-1154, certiorari granted May 29, 2007; 457 F.3d 135 (Fed. Cir.2006) | |
January 2006: Ninth Circuit Affirms that EPA Engaged in Removal, Not Remedial Action, under CERCLA United States v. W.R. Grace & Co., ___F.3d___ 03-35924 (9th Cir. Dec. 1, 2005) | |
March 2005: District of Columbia Circuit Rejects Challenge to Listing of Site on the National Priorities List Carus Chemical Company v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ___F.3d.___ 03-1455 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 11, 2005) | |
January 2005: Recent Investigations, Settlements, Penalties and Sanctions | |
January 2005: Sixth Circuit Upholds Plaintiff’s Recovery of a Percentage of Landfill Clean-up Costs where Defendant Arranged for Disposal under CERCLA §9607(a) GenCorp, Inc. v. Olin Corp., ___F.3d___ 03-3019, 3211 (6th Cir. Nov. 22, 2004) | |
September 2004: New York District Court Rules that Cost Cap Policy Covers All Investigation and Remediation Costs Required by EPA. Frazer Exton Development, L.P. v. Kemper Environmental, Ltd., ___F.Supp.2d___ 03 Civ. 0637 (HB) (S.D. N.Y July 28, 2004) | |
September 2004: D.C. Circuit Holds that EPA Need Not Consider Potential Remedy when Listing Site on the National Priorities List Honeywell International, Inc. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 372 F.3d 441 (D.C. Cir. 2004) |
|
|
Natural Resource Damages Standing |
|
|
|
Natural Resources Damages Actions and Settlements |
|
|
|
North Bronson Industrial Area Site |
|
|
|
Northside Sanitary Landfill Site |
|
|
|
Notice |
|
|
|
Nuclear Waste |
|
|
|
Nuisance Actions |
|
|
|
Oily Metal Shavings |
|
|
|
Ongoing Cleanup Efforts |
|
|
|
Operator Liability |
|
January 2010: District Court Finds Mandatory Contractual Provisions Requiring the Burning of Hazardous Waste Is¨Not Evidence that the U.S. Was an ‘Operator’ under CERCLA Steadfast Insurance Co. v. U.S., ___F.Supp.2d___ CV 09-4686 AHM (C.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2009) | |
December 2009: Second Circuit Holds City and Fire Company Are Not CERCLA ‘Operators’ in Responding to an Emergency where Hazardous Materials Are Released AMW Materials Testing, Inc. v. Town of Babylon, ___F.3d___ 08-1731-CV (2nd Cir. Oct. 19, 2009) | |
July 2009: District Court Denies Motion to Dismiss CERCLA Claims against ‘Owner and Operator’ where Party Was an Owner Only Board of County Commissioners of County of La Plata, Colorado v. Brown Group Retail Inc., ___F.Supp.2d___ 08-cv-00855 LTB (D. Colo. April 24, 2009) | |
July 2007: Bank Settles Suit Alleging CERCLA Operator Liability New York v. HSBC Bank, USA N.A. 07-3160, S.D. New York, settlement entered, May 22, 2007 | |
June 2006: Second Circuit Says Definition of ‘Operator’ under CERCLA Is a Question for the Trier of Fact AMW Material Testing, Inc. v. Town of Babylon, ___F.3d___ 05-0206 (2nd Cir. March 28, 2006) | |
May 2005: Flordia District Court Dismisses Claims Based on Successor and Parental Liability Theories in CERCLA Manufactured Gas Plant Litigation Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. UGI Utilities, Inc., et al., ___F.Supp.2d___ 3:03-cv-614 (M.D. Fl. March 23, 2005) | |
March 2005: District Court Finds Defendant Utility Contractor Who Released Hazardous Substances Was Not an “Operator” under CERCLA §107(a)(2) U.S. v. QWEST Corp., ___F.Supp.2d___ 2005 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 1399 (D. Minn. Jan. 24, 2005) | |
July 2004: Parent Corporation Successfully Avoids Operator and Arranger Liability. BP Amoco Chemical Company v. Sun Oil Company, ___F.Supp.2d___ Civ. A.00-82-KAJ (D.De. May 5, 2004). | |
July 2002: District Court: District Court in Delaware Reconsiders Prior Ruling and Allows CERCLA Action to Proceed against Corporate Parent BP Amoco v. Sun Oil Company, FMC Corporation, et al. ___F.Supp.2d___, Case No. 00-082-RRM, (D. Dela., April 30, 2002) |
|
|
Outboard Marine Corp. Superfund Site |
|
|
|
Owner Liability |
|
|
|
Parent and Subsidiary Liability |
|
April 2009: District Court Requires Specific Allegations Regarding Parent and Subsidiary Relationship to Maintain CERCLA §107 Action against Parent Ceramicas Industriales, S.A. v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., ___F.Supp.2d___ 08-5114, (S.D. N.Y. Feb. 11, 2009) | |
November 2006: Eleventh Circuit Does Not Hold Parent Corporations Responsible for CERCLA Environmental Cleanup Costs Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. UGI Utilities, Inc., ___F.3d___ 05-12204 (11th Cir. Sept. 6, 2006) | |
September 2005: Fifth Circuit Looks to Parties’ Agreement to Deny a Company’s Claims against Its Subsidiary for Attorney’s Fees Generated in CERCLA/RCRA Actions Honeywell International, Inc. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., ___F.3d___ 04-20589 (5th Cir. June 30, 2005) | |
May 2005: Flordia District Court Dismisses Claims Based on Successor and Parental Liability Theories in CERCLA Manufactured Gas Plant Litigation Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. UGI Utilities, Inc., et al., ___F.Supp.2d___ 3:03-cv-614 (M.D. Fl. March 23, 2005) | |
July 2004: Parent Corporation Successfully Avoids Operator and Arranger Liability. BP Amoco Chemical Company v. Sun Oil Company, ___F.Supp.2d___ Civ. A.00-82-KAJ (D.De. May 5, 2004). | |
June 2003: Third Circuit Holds Former Owner Liable under CERCLA, but Not for Ultrahazardous Activity Outlet City, Inc. v. West Chemical Products, Inc. ___F.3d___, Case No. 02-2055 (3rd Cir. March 24, 2003). | |
October 2002: District Court: District Court for the District of New Jersey Declines to Pierce the Corporate Veil in Environmental Cleanup Case Interfaith Community Organization v. Honeywell International, Inc. ___F.Supp.2d___,Case No.95-2097 DMC (D.N.J.July 26,2002). |
|
|
Passive Migration |
|
|
|
PCBs |
|
February 2010: District Court Using Equitable Factors Dismisses Polluters’ Claims for Contribution Appleton Papers Inc. and NCR Corp., v. George A. Whiting Paper Co., et al.,___F.Supp.2d___ 08-C-16 (E.D. Wisc. Dec. 16, 2009) | |
June 2005: Seventh Circuit Allows Citizen Suit for PCB Cleanup in Bloomington, Indiana to Proceed Sarah E. Frey, Kevin Enright, and Protect Our Woods, Inc. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Viacom, Inc.¸ ___F.3d___ 03-3877 (7th Cir. April 6, 2005) | |
August 2004: District Court Rules in Favor of Amtrak on Three Separate CERCLA Claims The United States v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation, et al. v. Penn Central Corporation, ___F.Supp.2d___ A 86-1094 (E.D. Pa. June 15, 2004) | |
December 2003: District Court of Rhode Island Declines to Apply Retroactively the 2001 Amendments to CERCLA Innocent Landowner Defense United States v. Domenic Lombardi Realty, Inc. ___F.Supp.2d____, Case No. C.A. No. 98-591S (D. R.I. Oct. 17, 2003). | |
March 2003: Indiana District Court Declines to Apply CERCLA's Contribution and Jurisdictional Bars to Landowner's State Law Cost Recovery Action Taylor Farm Limited Liability Company v. Viacom Inc ___F.Supp.2d___, Case No. IP01-1734 C-M/S (S.D. Ind. Dec. 24, 2002). | |
February 2003: Second Circuit Finds Divisibility of Harm Defense Not Applicable to Oil Emulsion Containing Heavy Metals and PCBs United States v. Alcan Aluminum Corporation, ___F.3d___, Case NO. No. 01-6008 (2nd Cir. Jan. 7, 2003). |
|
|
PCE |
|
|
|
Perchlorate |
|
|
|
Personal Injuries |
|
|
|
Pesticides |
|
|
|
Petroleum Exclusion |
|
|
|
Pleading |
|
|
|
Potentially Responsible Party |
|
August 2007: U.S. Supreme Court Allows Cost Recovery by PRPs under CECLA Section 107(A) and Clarifies Differences with Section 113(F) Contribution Claims U.S. v. Atlantic Research Corp., ___U.S.___ 127 S.Ct. 2331 (2007) | |
May 2007: District Court Distinguishes Third Circuit Precedent— Holds Federal Government May Pursue Cost Recovery Action under § 107 Despite Federal Agencies Status as PRP U.S. v. Simon Wrecking, Inc., ___F.Supp.2d___ 06-928 (E.D. Penn. March 14, 2007) | |
April 2007: District Court Limits Private PRPs’ Right to CERCLA Contribution against other PRPs Differential Development-1994, Ltd. v. Harkrider Distributing Co., ___F.Supp.2d___ H-05-3375 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 9, 2007.) | |
October 2005: District Court Finds a Party May Seek Indemnification from Other PRPs Pursuant to CERCLA § 107(a) if § 113(f) Recovery Is Unavailable Viacom, Inc. v. United States of America, ___F.Supp.2d___ 05-0468 (D. D.C. July 19, 2005) | |
October 2005: District Court Applies Aviall and Dismisses All CERCLA Claims by One Potentially Responsible Party against Another Kaladish v. Uniroyal Holdings, Inc., ___F.Supp.2nd___ 3: 00 CV 854(CFD) (D. Conn. Aug. 9, 2005) | |
May 2004: District Court: District Court Declines to Dismiss Landowner’s Cost Recovery Claim under CERCLA Section 107 Soo Line Railroad Company v. Ashland, Inc ___F.Supp.2d___, Case No. 01-1628 ADM/AJB (D. Minn. March 16, 2004). | |
February 2004: District Court Allows Co-PRP to Pursue CERCLA § 107 Claim with Respect to Portion of Site with Divisible Harm Durham Manufacturing Company v. Merriam Manufacturing Company ___F. Supp.2d___, Case No. 3:99cv2583 (GLG)(D. Conn. Dec. 17, 2003). | |
June 2002: Court of Appeals: Seventh Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Third-party Claims for Cleanup Costs where Expert Was Not Allowed to Testify Dura Automotive Systems of Indiana, Inc. v. CTS Corporation 285 F.3d 609 (7th Cir. 2002). | |
January 2001: General Electric Files Complaint Arguing that EPA's Issuance of Unilateral Administrative Orders under CERCLA Is Unconstitutional General Electric Company v. Carol Browner |
|
|
Preemption Doctrine |
|
October 2009: District Court Holds Defendants Not Liable for Violation of a Recently-Enacted Municipal Hazardous Substances Ordinance Village of DePue, Illinois v. Viacom International, Inc., ___F.Supp.2d___ 08-cv-1272, 08-cv-1273 (D. Ill. July 8, 2009) | |
October 2008: Seventh Circuit Holds Village’s Nuisance Action Not Preempted by CERCLA’s § 113(h), But Preempted by Illinois State Law Village of DePue v. Exxon Mobile Corporation, ___ F.3d___ 07-2311 (7th Cir. Aug. 11, 2008) | |
December 2007: District Court Holds CERCLA Preempts Alabama’s Rule of Repose Fisher v. Ciba Specialty Chemicals Corporation, et al., ___F.Supp.2d___ 03-0566 (S.D. Ala. Oct. 11, 2007) | |
October 2007: Second Circuit Holds CERCLA Does Not Preempt State Statute Limiting Dissolved Corporation’s Capacity to Be Sued Marsh v. Rosenbloom, ___F.3d___ 05-0514 (2nd Cir. Aug. 28, 2007) | |
July 2007: District Court Holds that a Contribution Claim under State Law Is Precluded by CERCLA Conflict Preemption N. Y. State Electric & Gas Corp. v. FirstEnergy Corp., ___F.Supp.2d___ 3:03-CV-0438 (N.D. NY May 11, 2007) | |
April 2007: District Court Rules that CERCLA Does Not Preempt State Common Law Claims for Cost Recovery New York v. Ametek, Inc., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ 05 CIV.2186 (S.D. N.Y. Jan. 18, 2007) | |
January 2006: News from the West: The Struggle of State Versus Federal Control over Water Resources Defenders of Wildlife v. U.S. EPA 420 F.3d 946 (9th Cir. 2005) | |
October 2005: Third Circuit Applies Uniform National Rule for Determining Successor Liability under CERCLA United States v. General Battery Corporation, ___F.3d ___ 03-3515 (3rd Cir. Sept. 6, 2005) |
February 2004: U.S. District Court Finds City of Lodi’s Environmental Cleanup Ordinance Is Preempted by CERCLA and Partially Invalid Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company v. City of Lodi, et al.; Unigard v. City of Lodi, et al. ___F.Supp.2d___, Civ. S98-1489 FCD/JFM (E.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2003); ___F.Supp.2d___, Civ S98-1712 FCD/JFM (E.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2003). | |
August 2003: Where Plaintiff Sought Non-CERCLA Damages, Plaintiff Could Not Obtain Benefit of CERCLA’s Discovery Rue to Prevent Running of Statute of Limitations Morgan v. Exxon Corp. Case No. 1012345 (Ala. June 13, 2003). | |
August 2003: Illinois District Court Holds CERCLA Strips Court of Jurisdiction to Hear Equitable Relief Claims Related to CERCLA Site Ludwig v. Pilkington North America, Inc. ___F.Supp.2d___, Case No. 03 C. 1086, (N.D. Ill. June 5 (revised June 9) 2003). | |
July 2003: Despite Decades of Litigation, CERCLA Preemption Remains an Open Issue | |
October 2002: Ninth Circuit Reconsiders Constitutionality of "Innovative" Municipal Ordinance Designed to Remedy Hazardous Waste Contamination Fund Insurance v. City of Lodi, ___F.3d___,Case No.99-15614/15802 (9th Cir.Aug.6,2002). | |
August 2002: Fifth Circuit Remands Environmental Tort Claim to State Court MSOF Corporation v. Exxon Corporation ___F.3d___, Case No.01-30122,(5th Cir.June 20,2002). |
|
|
Pre-enforcement Review |
|
|
|
Prejudgment Interest |
|
|
|
PRPs |
|
October 2007: District Court Holds Issuance of CERCLA Admin. Order Naming Only Private Entity as Responsible Party when U.S. Government Is Only Other PRP Does Not Violate Due Process Raytheon Aircraft Company v. U.S., ___F.Supp.2d___ 05-2328 (D. Kan. Aug. 10, 2007) | |
September 2004: New York District CourtDeclines to Dismiss Landowner’s Action under § 107 of CERCLA because Owner Might Qualify for the “Third Party” or “Innocent Purchaser” Defense Emerson Enterprises, LLC v. Kenneth Crosby Acquisition Corp.,___F.Supp.2d___ 03-CV-6530 CJS (W.D. N.Y. June 23, 2004) | |
May 2002: Washington State Supreme Court Dismisses ASARCO's Retroactivity Challenge to a State CERCLA-type Enforcement Action Asarco Incorporated v. Department of Ecology ___P.3d___, Case No. 69406-1 (Wash. March 21, | |
March 2002: New York District Court Finds that State May Reimburse Municipality for Toxic Cleanup, then Seek Reimbursement under CERCLA against Responsible Parties New York v. Moulds Holding Corp. ___F.Supp.2d___,Case No.00-CV-1034 (N.D.N.Y.,Jan.28,2002) | |
October 2001: First Circuit Refuses to Raise the Bar for Proving CERCLA Contribution Claims United States v. William M. Davis, et al. ___F.3d___, Case Nos. 00-1234, 001342, 00-1343, 00-1344, 001345, 00-1399, 00-1400, 00-1401, 00-1402, 00-1403 and 00-1404 (1st Cir. Aug. 17, 2001). |
|
|
Publicly Owned Treatment Works |
|
|
|
Radiologic Contamination |
|
|
|
Remedial Actions |
|
March 2008: District Court Holds Action Based on Late Discovery of TCE Is Barred by Statute of Limitations Applicable to Remedial Action Based on Different TCE Source on Same Property Douglas Autotech Corporation v. Scott Fetzer Company, ___F.Supp.2d___ 1:07-cv-1062 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 23, 2008) | |
March 2008: District Court Holds Action Based on Late Discovery of TCE Is Barred by Statute of Limitations Applicable to Remedial Action Based on Different TCE Source on Same Property Douglas Autotech Corporation v. Scott Fetzer Company, ___F.Supp.2d___ 1:07-cv-1062 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 23, 2008) | |
January 2008: District Court Unable to Classify Superfund Cleanup as Either Removal or Remedial at Pleadings Stage of Cost Recovery Action U.S. v. Sensient Colors, Inc., ___F.Supp.2d___ 07-1275 (D. N.J. Oct. 30, 2007) | |
December 2006: Southern District of Indiana Holds that CERCLA Remedy Cannot Be Challenged under Other Environmental Laws Frey v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ___F.Supp.2d___ 1:00-CV-660-RLY-WTL (S.D. Ind. Sept. 29, 2006) | |
March 2006: District Court Holds State and Local Officials Are Entitled to Participate in the Selection of CERCLA Cleanups at Sites Formerly Owned by the United States City of Moses Lake v. United States, ___F.Supp.2d___ CV-04-0375-AAM, Doc. 181 (E.D. Wash. Dec. 30, 2005) | |
November 2004: Landfill Operator Loses All Claims in Contribution Due to Lapsed Statute of Limitations under CERCLA Schaeffer v. Town of Victor, ___F.Supp.2d___ 99-CD-6010 (W.D. N.Y. Sept. 23, 2004) |
|
|
Removal Actions |
|
August 2009: District Court Finds Forest Service’s Cleanup a ‘Removal’ Action under CERCLA Section 104 Making the Action Against the Service a ‘Challenge’ Barring Federal Court Jurisdiction under Section 113 Washington Environmental Council v. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, ___F.Supp.2d___ C06-1249-JCC, (W. D. Wash. June 2, 2009) | |
May 2008: District Court Affirms CERCLA Section 113’s Denial of Federal Court Jurisdiction to Hear Challenges to CERCLA Removal Actions—Plaintiff’s RCRA Claims Dismissed Wason Ranch Corporation v. Hecla Mining Company et al., ___F.Supp.2d___ 07-cv-00267 (D. Colo. March 31, 2008) | |
January 2008: District Court Unable to Classify Superfund Cleanup as Either Removal or Remedial at Pleadings Stage of Cost Recovery Action U.S. v. Sensient Colors, Inc., ___F.Supp.2d___ 07-1275 (D. N.J. Oct. 30, 2007) | |
April 2007: First Circuit Finds EPA’s Characterization of Cleanup as ‘Removal Action’ Is Consistent with CERCLA Requirements U.S. v. JG-24, Inc., ___F.3d___ 04-2577 (1st Cir. Feb. 16, 2007) | |
December 2006: Southern District of Indiana Holds that CERCLA Remedy Cannot Be Challenged under Other Environmental Laws Frey v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ___F.Supp.2d___ 1:00-CV-660-RLY-WTL (S.D. Ind. Sept. 29, 2006) | |
January 2006: Ninth Circuit Affirms that EPA Engaged in Removal, Not Remedial Action, under CERCLA United States v. W.R. Grace & Co., ___F.3d___ 03-35924 (9th Cir. Dec. 1, 2005) |
January 2006: California District Court Dismisses Developer’s Claims Challenging State Agency Cleanup of Landfill Gas at Former Air Force Base Shea Homes Limited Partnership v. United States, ___F.Supp.2d___ C04 – 0092 TEH (N.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2005) |
|
|
Removal Costs |
|
|
|
Res Judicata |
|
|
|
Response Costs |
|
May 2009: Second Circuit Holds Party Who Remediates Contamination under State Consent Order Can Bring CERCLA Action for Response Costs–Not for Contribution W.R. Grace & Co.-Conn. v. Zotos International, Inc., ___F.3d___ 04-2798 (2nd Cir. March 4, 2009) |
December 2008: District Court Holds Statue of Limitations for CERCLA Response Costs Begins upon Completion of All Removal Actions—Groundwater Contamination Is a ‘Continuing’ Nuisance ENNS Pontiac, Buick, & GMC, et al. v. Flores, et al., ___F.Supp.2d___ 1:07-CV-1043 OWW DLB (E.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2008) | |
February 2007: District Court Holds that Recovery of Response Costs under CERCLA and State Law Are Subject to Statutes of Limitations Triggered by Response Actions Not Approved by EPA City of Moses Lake v. U.S., ___F.Supp.2d___ 04-0376 (E.D. Wash Dec. 7, 2006) | |
February 2007: Eighth Circuit Finds Contribution for CERCLA Liability Depends on Substantial Continuity Test K.C. 1986 Limited Partnership v. Reade Manufacturing, et al., ___F.3d___ 05-2064, 06-1944, 05-2068 (8th Cir. Jan. 4, 2007) | |
October 2006: Second Circuit Finds Landfill Operator Time Barred from Pursuing Indemnification of Response Costs under CERCLA’s § 107 Schaefer v. Town of Victor,___F.3d___ 05-1949-CV (2nd Cir. July 13, 2006) | |
April 2005: District Court in New York Refuses to Contradict the Supreme Court’s Decision on CERCLA Contribution Claims Elementis Chemicals Inc. v. T. H. Agriculture and Nutrition, LLC, ___F.Supp.2d___ 03 CV 5150 (S.D. N.Y. Jan. 31, 2005) | |
August 2002: Tenth Circuit Reverses Jury Verdict Awarding Insurance Coverage to Colorado Sewage Treatment Entity, though Notice Was Untimely Metro Wastewater Reclamation District v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company, ___F.3d___, Nos. 99-1327, 99-1336, 01-1196, 01-1234 (10th Cir. May 24, 2002). | |
June 2002: California District Court Holds that Trusts, Like Other Entities Formed for Purposes of Performing Environmental Cleanups, Can Bring CERCLA Contribution Actions Karras v. Teledyne Industries, Inc., ___F.Supp.2d___ Case No. 99CV0996, (S.D. Cal. March 25, 2002). | |
January 2001: Eighth Circuit Denies Recovery where Only Attorneys, Not Plaintiffs, Have Incurred Response Costs Trimble v. Asarco Inc. ___F.3d ____, No.99-2894 (8th Cir. Nov. 28, 2000) |
|
|
Retroactive Application |
|
April 2005: District Court in California Finds that Corporations Dissolved Prior to the Enactment of CERCLA Are Not Subject to Causes of Action under CERCLA City of Rialto v. U.S. Department of Defense, et al., ___F.Supp.2d___ EDCV 04-00079-VAP(SSx), consolidated with EDCV 04-759 VAP (C.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2005) | |
January 2005: District Court in Indiana Holds that Indiana State Superfund Statute Applies Retroactively Commercial Logistics Corporation v. ACF Industries, Inc., ___F.Supp.2d___ 4:04-CV-0074 B/H (S.D. Ind. Nov. 10, 2004) | |
June 2003: District Court Rejects Argument that Retroactive Application of CERCLA Section 113 Is Unconstitutional. PAS Oswego Site Performing Group v. Alcan Aluminum Corp., ___F.Supp.2d___, Case No. CV-1534 (N.D. N.Y., April 3, 2003). |
|
|
Section 104e Requests |
|
|
|
Section 106 |
|
|
|
Section 113 Bar to Federal Court Jurisdiciton |
|
|
|
Settlements |
|
|
|
Ship Propellers |
|
|
|
Sovereign Immunity |
|
|
|
Springfellow Superfund Site |
|
|
|
Standing |
November 2009: Seventh Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Gun Range/Lead Pollution Suit under the Clean Water Act, RCRA and CERCLA for Lack of Standing Pollack v. U.S. Department of Justice, ___F.3d___ 08-3857 (7th Cir. 2009) | |
October 2009: Seventh Circuit Denies Standing for Lake Michigan Pollution Blue Eco Legal Council, et al. v. U.S. Department of Justice, ___F.3d___ 08-3857 (7th Cir. Aug. 13, 2009) | |
September 2005: District Court Finds Supreme Court’s Cooper Decision Bars CERCLA Cost Recovery Claims by One Private Party against Another CadleRock Properties Joint Venture, L.P. v. Schilberg, ___F.Supp.2d___ 3:01CV896 (D. Conn. July 18, 2005) | |
August 2005: Ninth Circuit Holds that CERCLA Does Not Apply to Contamination at Former Military Bases in the Philippines Arc Ecology v. U.S. Department of the Air Force, ___ F.3d ___ 04-15031 (9th Cir. June 15, 2005) | |
July 2005: District Court in New York Finds that Settlement under State Hazardous Waste Laws Does Not Provide Right to Contribution under CERCLA W.R. Grace & Co. v. Zotos International Inc., ___F.Supp.2d___ 98-CV-383, (W.D. N.Y. May 3, 2005) |
|
|
Statute of Limitations |
|
December 2009: District Court Rules on a Series of CERCLA Motions Alleging Equitable Tolling, Tolling Agreement and Statute of Limitations Issues U.S. v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., ___F. Supp.2d___ H-07-3795 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 9, 2009) | |
December 2009: District Court Applies More Generous CERCLA Discovery Rule for Running of Statute of Limitations Period Whitlock v. Pepsi Americas, et al., ___F.Supp.2d___ C 08-02742 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2009) | |
January 2009: Ninth Circuit Holds CERCLA’s Provision Superseding State Statutes of Limitations Extends to State Statutes of Repose McDonald v. Sun Oil Co., ___F.3d___ 06-35683 (9th Cir. Nov. 19, 2008) | |
December 2008: District Court Holds Statue of Limitations for CERCLA Response Costs Begins upon Completion of All Removal Actions—Groundwater Contamination Is a ‘Continuing’ Nuisance ENNS Pontiac, Buick, & GMC, et al. v. Flores, et al., ___F.Supp.2d___ 1:07-CV-1043 OWW DLB (E.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2008) | |
October 2008: The Waukegan Harbor Saga Continues: U.S. District Court Dismisses City’s Suit against Local Industry City of Waukegan v. National Gypsum Company, et al., ___F.Supp.2d___ 07 C 5008 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 8, 2008) | |
March 2008: District Court Holds Action Based on Late Discovery of TCE Is Barred by Statute of Limitations Applicable to Remedial Action Based on Different TCE Source on Same Property Douglas Autotech Corporation v. Scott Fetzer Company, ___F.Supp.2d___ 1:07-cv-1062 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 23, 2008) | |
February 2007: District Court Holds that Recovery of Response Costs under CERCLA and State Law Are Subject to Statutes of Limitations Triggered by Response Actions Not Approved by EPA City of Moses Lake v. U.S., ___F.Supp.2d___ 04-0376 (E.D. Wash Dec. 7, 2006) | |
October 2006: Second Circuit Finds Landfill Operator Time Barred from Pursuing Indemnification of Response Costs under CERCLA’s § 107 Schaefer v. Town of Victor,___F.3d___ 05-1949-CV (2nd Cir. July 13, 2006) | |
July 2005: Second Circuit Holds Claims against the Federal Government Relating to Military Contamination Were Time-Barred and Sought Improper Response Costs Syms v. Olin Corporation, ___F.3d___ 03-6234 (2nd Cir. May 18, 2005) | |
November 2004: Landfill Operator Loses All Claims in Contribution Due to Lapsed Statute of Limitations under CERCLA Schaeffer v. Town of Victor, ___F.Supp.2d___ 99-CD-6010 (W.D. N.Y. Sept. 23, 2004) | |
April 2004: Ninth Circuit Holds that Cost Recovery under CERCLA Begins to Run with Adoption of Final Remedial Action Plan California v. Neville Chemical Company ___F.3d___, Case No. 02-56506 (9th Cir. Feb. 10, 2004). | |
April 2004: Third Circuit Holds Prudential Insurance Failed to Establish RICO Claim against Asbestos Manufacturers and Sellers Prudential Insurance Company of America v. National Gypsum Company ___F.3d___, Case No. 02-3837 (3rd Cir. Feb. 20, 2004). | |
March 2004: Sixth Circuit Finds the Equitable Nature of CERCLA Does Not Constitute Grounds for Reopening of Allocation Judgments Kalamazoo River Study Group v. Rockwell Intn’l Corp ___F.3d___, Case Nos. 01-2453, 02-2192 (6th Cir. Jan. 14, 2004). | |
November 2003: Tenth Circuit Allows State Of Colorado’s Late Cost Recovery Claim State of Colorado v. Sunoco, et als. ___F.3d___, Case No. 02-1014 (10th Cir. Aug. 5, 2003). | |
July 2003: Despite Decades of Litigation, CERCLA Preemption Remains an Open Issue | |
January 2003: Ninth Circuit Finds CERCLA's Federal Statute of Limitations Period Preempts California's. O'Connor v. Boeing North America, Inc., ___F.3d___, Case No. 00-56141 (9th Cir. Nov. 27, 2002). | |
February 2001: Recent Federal Decisions Fifth Circuit Adopts Tenth Circuit's Rule to Fill Gap in CERCLA's Statute of Limitation Geraghty and Miller, Inc. v. Conoco Inc. ___F.3d___,No.99-20020, 2000 U.S.App.LEXIS 31831, (5th Cir. Dec. 14, 2000) |
|
|
Statute of Repose |
|
|
|
Successor Liability |
|
July 2009: Sixth Circuit Finds CERCLA Liabilities Are Contractually Assumed for Hazardous Waste Damage before Interest in Polluting Plant Acquired U.S. Bank National Association, Trustee v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ___F.3d___ 08-3083 (6th Cir. April 20, 2009) | |
January 2006: Asset Purchases and Corporate Successor Liability | |
October 2005: Third Circuit Applies Uniform National Rule for Determining Successor Liability under CERCLA United States v. General Battery Corporation, ___F.3d ___ 03-3515 (3rd Cir. Sept. 6, 2005) | |
October 2004: District Court Denies Summary Judgment under CERCLA where Elements of Both “Arranger” and “Successor” Liability Were Not Proven Signature Combs, Inc. v. United States, ___F.Supp.2d___ 98-2777 D, 93-2968, 00-2245 D (W.D. Tenn. Aug. 20, 2004) | |
July 2004: District Court Finds Failure to Conduct All Appropriate Inquiry Costs PRP Innocent Purchaser Status. XDP Inc. v. Watumull Properties Corp. v. Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation, et al., ___F.Supp.2d___ Civ. 99-1703-AS (D. Or. 2004). | |
May 2003: Tenth Circuit Finds that Successor Company Is Not Liable as an "Operator" or "Arranger" under CERCLA Raytheon Constructors Inc., v. Asarco, Inc. ___F.3d___, Case No. D.C. 96-N2072 (10TH Cir. March 11, 2003). | |
March 2003: Maryland District Court Makes It Easier to Bring Suit Under CERCLA 1325 "G" Street Associates v. Rockwood Pigments NA, ___F.Supp.2d___, Case No. DKC 2002-1622 (D. Md. Dec. 20, 2002) | |
January 2003: District Court Upholds "Substantial Continuity" Test for CERCLA Corporate Successor Liability Pennsylvania v. Concept Sciences Inc. ___F.Supp.2d___, Case No. 02-2888 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 2, 2002). | |
May 2002: District Court Uses De Facto Merger Analysis and "Substantial Continuity" Test to Find Successor Liability under CERCLA United States of America v. Exide Corporation ___F.Supp.2d___, Case No. 00-CV-3057 (E.D. Penn. |
|
|
Summary Judgment |
|
|
|
Summitville Mine Superfund Site |
|
|
|
Superfund Amendments and Reauthoriziation Act of 1986 |
|
|
|
Takings |
|
|
|
Tar Creek Superfund Site |
|
April 2006: aaa aaa aaa |
|
|
TCE |
|
|
|
Terrorism |
|
|
|
Tri County Public Airport Site |
|
|
|
Troy Water Street Superfund Site |
|
|
|
Unilateral Administrative Order |
|
|
|
Unilateral Administrative Orders |
|
|
|
Useful Product Defense |
|
|
|
Ventton/Velsicol Site |
|
|
|
Volatile Organic Compounds VOCs |
|
|
|
Voluntary Cleanup |
|
October 2008: District Court Dismisses CERCLA Section 107 Claim Noting that Section 113 Was Defendant’s Exclusive Remedy Appleton Papers Inc., NCR Corp., v. George A. Whiting Paper Co., ___F.Supp.2d___ (E.D. Wis. Aug. 20, 2008) | |
August 2008: District Court Grants Summary Judgment for Insurance Company Holding No Duty to Indemnify for Voluntary Cleanup Costs Aggio v. Estate of Aggio, ___F.Supp.2d___ 04-4357 (N.D. Cal. June 19, 2008) | |
January 2008: Third Circuit Reverses Earlier Decision Barring CERCLA PRP Cost Recovery, Relying on Atlantic Research Decision E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Co. v. U.S., ___F.3d___ 04-2096 (3rd Cir. Nov. 20, 2007) | |
August 2007: U.S. Supreme Court Allows Cost Recovery by PRPs under CECLA Section 107(A) and Clarifies Differences with Section 113(F) Contribution Claims U.S. v. Atlantic Research Corp., ___U.S.___ 127 S.Ct. 2331 (2007) | |
July 2007: U.S. Supreme Court Unanimously Affirms Cost Recovery under CERCLA Section 107 in Case Where PRPs Voluntarily Cleaned Up Contaminated Soil and Groundwater Site U.S. v. Atlantic Research Corporation, 551 U.S.___ 06-562Case (June 11, 2007) | |
October 2006: A Polluter that Voluntarily Initiates Clean-Up Cannot Later Seek CERCLA Contribution from the Federal Government E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co v. United States,___F.3d___ 04-2096, (3rd Cir. Aug. 29, 2006) | |
October 2006: Second Circuit Finds Landfill Operator Time Barred from Pursuing Indemnification of Response Costs under CERCLA’s § 107 Schaefer v. Town of Victor,___F.3d___ 05-1949-CV (2nd Cir. July 13, 2006) | |
November 2005: Second Circuit Holds CERCLA Liable Party May Sue under Section 107(a) for Response Costs Incurred Voluntarily Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc. v. UGI Utilities, Inc., ___F.3d___ 04-2409-cv (2nd Cir. Sept. 9, 2005) |
|
|
Wastewater |
|
May 2003: District Court Finds Mushroom Waste Processing Facility's Wastewater Processing System Is a "Point Source" under the Clean Water Act Warren Reynolds, et al. v. Rick's Mushroom Service ___F.Supp.2d___, Case No. 01-3773 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 24, 2003). | |
August 2002: Tenth Circuit Reverses Jury Verdict Awarding Insurance Coverage to Colorado Sewage Treatment Entity, though Notice Was Untimely Metro Wastewater Reclamation District v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company, ___F.3d___, Nos. 99-1327, 99-1336, 01-1196, 01-1234 (10th Cir. May 24, 2002). |
|
|
Water Supply |
|
|
|
Wingate Superfund Site |
|
|
|
|
February 2008: