As seen in our prior posts on Niagara Mohawk v. Chevron, 596 F.3d 112, in the two appeals and remands prior to the Second Circuit’s February decision, the District Court failed to properly address Niagara Mohawk’s (NiMo’s) argument under § 113(f)(3)(B), asserting that it has a
Our last post discussed the Second Circuit’s recent decision in Niagara Mohawk v. Chevron, 596 F.3d 112 (2d Cir. Feb 24, 2010). We left off when the District Court was about to review its prior decision in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Cooper Industries v. Aviall Services (“Aviall”).
The Aviall Court held that a […]
The Second Circuit’s recent decision in Niagara Mohawk Power Corp v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 596 F.3d 112 (2d Cir. Feb 24, 2010), is a study (yet again) in the claims available to private parties to
I’m speaking about the Gulf of Mexico oil crisis that began in late April, of course. Few environmental catastrophes have shocked the nation more than the huge, continuing, unremitting flow of many thousands of gallons per hour of oil for seemingly an interminable period, with no end in sight. The Deepwater Horizon drilling rig blew
Following our posts on the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. United States, No. 07-1601, –U.S.– (U.S. May 4, 2009) (“BNSF”), this post will discuss implications of this decision on apportionment in Superfund cases as various commentators (including this one) see it.
Following our recent posts on the Supreme Court’s decision in Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. United States, No. 07-1601, –U.S.– (U.S. May 4, 2009) (”BNSF“), this post will discuss the implications of
Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. United States: The Supreme Court Clarifies the Requirements for “Arranger” Liability and Allocation of Liability in CERCLA Cases – Part II.
As discussed in our prior posting, the Supreme Court recently clarified the requirements for “arranger” liability and allocation of liability in CERCLA cases in Burlington Northern & […]
Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. United States: The Supreme Court Clarifies the Requirements for “Arranger” Liability and Allocation of Liability in CERCLA Cases – Part I.
The Supreme Court recently clarified the requirements for “arranger” liability and allocation of liability in CERCLA
The Western District of Washington also recently followed the holding from the Aviall case. See Port of Tacoma v. Todd Shipyards Corp., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5884 (W.D.Wa., January 14, 2009). The Port of Tacoma sued Todd Shipyards in a contribution action under CERCLA § 113(f) for
In a recent Second Circuit decision, W.R. Grace & Co. v. Zotos International, No.: 05-cv-2798 (March 4, 2009), the Court followed two recent Supreme Court decisions on the oft-contested issue of when and under what sections of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) (the “Superfund” statute) a potentially responsible party (“PRP”) can […]
