· 4/14/2008
Ashtabula River Corp. Group II v. Conrail, Inc.
Citations
- 549 F. Supp. 2d 981
- 38 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20101
- 67 ERC (BNA) 1521
- 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30152
- 2008 WL 1752144
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding plaintiffs public nuisance claim was barred by the economic loss rule because it wasn’t actually a landowner of the site, and thus there was no allegation of harm to any property
- granting Rule 12(b)(6) motion and prohibiting state law claim due to operation of CERCLA’s double recovery bar
- following RWP in barring public nuisance claims based on contamination of a river
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Patricia A. Gaughan
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.