Channel Master Satellite, Systems, Inc. v. JFD Electronics Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that testimony of an expert which is outside his area of expertise is excludable under Rule 702
• “The court notes that there is no statutory language in the CERCLA statute which supports such an argument”
• both holding that the Ninth Circuit rulings are “tied to narrow facts” and are “not broad holdings.” (emphasis in original)
• “[T]he plaintiff bears the burden of proof to establish, as an essential element for recovery that, inter alia, the response costs for which it seeks compensation were ‘consistent’ with the NCP.”
• “In General Electric, for example, the cleanup site in question was discussed in at least three public meetings of the [the state environmental agency], of which prior public notice was given” (emphasis original)
• “absence of a proper RI/FS defeats a claim of compliance with the NCP”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).