Sycamore Industrial Park Associates v. Ericsson, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that there was no release or threatened release, within the meaning of CERCLA, because the hazardous substance was “contained inside the buildings of the facility or, in the instances when insulated piping runs between buildings, is enclosed in a piping chase or in a metal case”
• defining “contribute” and concluding that “[b]y definition, the phrase ‘has contributed or is contributing’ requires affirmative action”
• finding no “disposal” or “release” of asbestos wheré it was “either inside a building or enclosed in a pipe chase or metal case” and “even if the asbestos broke off, asbestos fibers would remain in the building.”
• “The vast majority of 21 courts that have considered this issue read [the] RCRA to require affirmative action rather than 22 merely passive conduct . . . for handling or storage liability.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).