State of California, on Behalf of the California Department of Toxic Substances Control v. Neville Chemical Company, a Corporation

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that for the purposes of “the onset of the limitations period for recovery of remedial action costs under CERCLA,” no action can be “remedial” until adoption of a final remedial action plan
• noting that “’provision of alternative water supplies’ is listed as both a type of ‘remedial action’ and as a type of ‘removal’”
• noting that “’provision of alternative water supplies’ is listed as both a type of ‘remedial action’ and as a type of ‘removal’”
• noting list- ing of “provision of alternative water supplies” under both “remedial action” and “removal”
• applying § 9607’s limitation of defenses to claims brought under both § 9607(a) and § 9613(g)(2)
• ʺremedial actions generally are permanent responsesʺ (quoting Geraghty & Miller, Inc. v. Conoco, Inc., 234 F.3d 917, 926 (5th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks omitted))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).