Carson Harbor Village, Ltd. v. Unocal Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that although Bedford is correct that one purpose of public participation requirement is to ensure that cleanups performed without governmental oversight are environmentally sound, this is not the only purpose
• finding action was remedial where “[t]here is no evidence in the record that the materials posed the type of threat to human health and welfare that required immediate action”
• attempted taking of 99 Cents store to replace with a Costco
• property owner’s cleanup of tar-like and slag materials was “remedial action” because there was no evidence that the materials posed the type of threat to human health and welfare that required immediate action

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).