Bedford Affiliates v. Sills

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that extensive government oversight of response actions “serves the identical purpose that the public notice provision seeks to effectuate”
• discussing differences between claims for recovery under 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a) and claims for contribution under 42 U.S.C. § 9613(f) and holding that a Section 9607(a) suit is not available to potentially responsible parties
• allocating a 5% share of liability to the owner of the property, who exercised no control over his tenants and bore little responsibility for the release of hazardous substances
• upholding allocation of 95% for generator of all hazardous waste and 5% for owner of property that generated none of the hazardous waste but delayed almost three years before contacting a government agency to begin cleanup
• holding application of certain State law remedies was preempted by CERCLA and reasoning that CERCLA \does not expressly preempt state law” but where State or local law \stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purpose and objectives of Congress,” it is preempted
• N.Y.S.DEC’s substantial involvement in formulation and execution of preliminary remediation plan was effective substitute for NCP’s public comment requirement

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).