United States v. Fairchild Industries, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• striking affirmative defenses based on the conduct of third parties where the defenses did not conform to the language of section 107(b)(3)
• lumping non-contiguous properties in CERCLA action “would go beyond the bounds even of the liberal nexus between the defendants and the response which was set forth in Monsanto ”
• striking defendants’ affirmative defenses asserting they exercised due care and complied with applicable laws
• adopting the same requirements for pleading this defense and noting that “[t]he detailed provisions of subsection (b)(3) demonstrate that Congress did not intend there to be a general third-party defense; instead a party must allege and prove a specific set of facts”
• “The United States need not sue every potentially responsible party in order to bring a cost recovery action”
• court retained certain equitable defenses to CERCLA action subject to further development of the record

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).