United States v. Atlantic Research Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that it is inappropriate to “adopt a textually dubious construction that threatens to render the entire provision a nullity”
• observing that “by reimbursing response costs paid by other parties, the PRP has not incurred its own costs of response and therefore cannot recover under § 107(a)”
• observing that “by reimbursing response costs paid by other parties, the PRP has not incurred its own costs of response and therefore cannot recover under § 107(a)”
• noting that \CERCLA § 9607 is a strict liability statute\ (quoting United States v. Alcan Aluminum Corp., 315 F.3d 179, 184 (2d Cir.2003) (internal quotation marks omitted))
• explaining that “§ 107(a) permits cost recovery (as distinct from contribution) by a private party that has itself incurred cleanup costs”
• noting that § 107(a) [the cost-recovery provision] and § 113(f)(1) [the contribution provision] provide distinct causes of action

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).