Gould Inc. v. a & M Battery and Tire Service

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that once liability of a defendant has been established under Section 107(a
• rejecting plaintiffs attempt to shift orphaned shares to defendants because “each party is only responsible for [its] proportionate share of the harm caused at the [site]”
• “it appears evident that when a party, who agrees to cleanup a site pursuant to a settlement agreement, sues another liable party, it is a claim for contribution and it must be distinguished from cases in which a plaintiff incurred expenses on its own initiative”
• “it appears evident that when a par ty, who agrees to cleanup a site pursuant to a settlement agreement, sues another liable party, it is a claim for contribution and it must be distinguished from cases in which a plaintiff incurred expenses at its own initiative”
• discussing Third Circuit CERCLA precedent regarding cost recovery
• defendants not liable for any orphan shares

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).