Federal Case

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that courts implied a right of action for contribution where it was evident that the plaintiff had contributed more than its pro rata share of costs to the cleanup effort
• noting that the broad language of CERCLA “has given the courts many challenges”
• affirming district court finding that incurred costs were consistent with the NCP based on trial testimony and 40 C.F.R. 300.700(c)(3)(ii)
• “any claim that would reapportion costs between these [potentially responsible persons] is the quintessential claim for contribution”
• if potentially responsible persons were permitted to recover from other potentially responsible persons under section 107, section 113 would be rendered meaningless
• Section 113(f)(1) was intended to enable those bearing a disproportionate share of the liability in a clean-up to recover from others

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).