Jones-Hamilton Co., a California Corporation v. Beazer Materials & Services, Inc. Kop-Coat, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Koppers Company, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that a prior panel’s “interpretation of California law is binding in the absence of any subsequent indication from the California courts that our interpretation was incorrect” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• noting that a prior panel's \interpretation of California law is `binding in the absence of any subsequent indication from the California courts that our interpretation was incorrect' \ (emphasis added) (quoting Owen v. United States, 713 F.2d 1461, 1464 (9th Cir. 1983))
• explaining exception under which the court may exercise its discretion to review a denial of summary judgment, which ordinarily is not appealable
• using California law to construe an indemnity agreement in connection with CERCLA liabilities
• inherent generation of hazardous waste, in combination with ownership of the hazardous substances, sufficient to impose arranger liability
• CERCLA does not impinge on freedom of private parties to contract amongst themselves

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).