United States v. Chem-Dyne Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that CERCLA was clear as to its “standard of liability,” but ambiguous with respect to the “scope of liability,” ie., whether liability is joint and several
• concluding that CERCLA was clear as to its ʺstandard of liability,ʺ 14 but ambiguous with respect to the ʺscope of liability,ʺ i.e., whether liability is joint 15 and several
• finding that the “language of the two statutes addressing liability and contribution is strikingly similar”
• finding that “the delineation of a uniform federal rule of decision is consistent with the legislative history and policies of CERCLA and ... that no compelling local interests mandate the incorporation of state law”
• denying a motion for summary judgment on the issue of joint and several liability in a complex hazardous-waste case
• examining Restatement as part of the common law for CERCLA because “the inevitable incompleteness presented by all legislation means that the interstitial federal lawmaking is a basic responsibility of the federal courts.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).