Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- CERCLA (2)
- EPA (2)
- Ninth Circuit (2)
- PRP (2)
- 1998 RCRA Decree (1)
-
- 2009 CERCLA Decree (1)
- 827 F.3d 452 (5th Cir. 2016) (1)
- 866 F.3d 1108 (1)
- 9th Circuit (1)
- American Smelting and Refining Company (1)
- Anaconda (1)
- Anaconda Copper Mining Company (1)
- Anaconda Mining Company (1)
- And Liability Act (1)
- Appeal (1)
- Arco (1)
- Asarco (1)
- Asarco LLC v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (1)
- Asarco LLC v. Atlantic Richfield Company (1)
- Atlantic Richfield (1)
- Atlantic Richfield Co. (1)
- Atlantic Richfield Company (1)
- California Department of Toxic Substances Control v. Westside Delivery (1)
- Circuit Split (1)
- Cleanup Costs (1)
- Compensation (1)
- Comprehensive Environmental Response (1)
- Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (1)
- Contamination (1)
- Contribution Action (1)
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Law
Martin V. United States, Mitch L. Werbell V
Martin V. United States, Mitch L. Werbell V
Public Land & Resources Law Review
In Martin v. United States, the Federal Circuit Court dismissed a Fifth Amendment regulatory takings and exaction claim for want of ripeness when the claimant failed to apply for a permit, which would have allowed for an assessment of the cost of compliance with governmentally imposed requirements. By finding the claim unripe, the court stood firm on the historical view that federal courts may only adjudicate land-use regulatory takings and inverse condemnation claims on the merits after a regulating entity has made a final decision. However, jurisprudential evolution of the ripeness doctrine and judicial review of takings claims may …
Upper Skagit Indian Tribe V. Lundgren, Brett Berntsen
Upper Skagit Indian Tribe V. Lundgren, Brett Berntsen
Public Land & Resources Law Review
Stemming from a property dispute between a private landowner and the Upper Skagit Indian Tribe, this action evolved into a debate concerning the scope of tribal sovereign immunity and whether Indian tribes should be bound by certain common law doctrines applicable to most other sovereigns. The Washington Supreme Court originally ruled against the Tribe, citing County of Yakima v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of Yakima Nation in holding that sovereign immunity does not apply to in rem actions. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to clarify that its ruling in Yakima did not support such a proposition. The case …
Upstate Citizens For Equality, Inc. V. United States, Kirsa Shelkey
Upstate Citizens For Equality, Inc. V. United States, Kirsa Shelkey
Public Land & Resources Law Review
The Indian Reorganization Act of 1935 is the proper avenue for Tribes pursuing restoration of their historic trust lands. The Oneida Indian Nation of New York long sought to reassert tribal jurisdiction over its historic homeland in Central New York. These efforts were largely unsuccessful until 2008 when the United States took 13,000 acres of this historic homeland into trust on behalf of the Tribe under the Indian Reorganization Act. This case affirms the federal government’s plenary powers over Indian Tribes, and that neither state sovereignty principles, nor the Enclave Clause upset that authority.
California Department Of Toxic Substances Control V. Westside Delivery, Llc, Mitch L. Werbell V
California Department Of Toxic Substances Control V. Westside Delivery, Llc, Mitch L. Werbell V
Public Land & Resources Law Review
The Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in California Department of Toxic Substances Control v. Westside Delivery, LLC reminds prospective purchasers of tax-defaulted property of their responsibility for due diligence.The case addressed the reach of the third-party defense to a CERCLA cost recovery action. The court determined that CERCLA’s third-party defense did not apply to a company which purchased a contaminated property at a tax auction because of its “contractual relationship” with the former owner-polluter and because the relevant contaminating acts occurred “in connection with” the prior polluter’s ownership of the site.
Markle Interest, L.L.C. V. U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Peter B. Taylor
Markle Interest, L.L.C. V. U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Peter B. Taylor
Public Land & Resources Law Review
This action is an appeal of a grant of summary judgment to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service on the designation of critical-habitat for the dusky gopher frog under the ESA. Landowner appellants originally sought declaratory and injunctive relief against the Service, the Department of Interior, and agency officials challenging the designation of their private property as critical-habitat for the dusky gopher frog. The court’s holdings recognize loss of property value as a “particularized injury” for standing under the ESA in addition to addressing the landowners’ three principal arguments: 1) the critical habitat designation violated the ESA and the …
Asarco Llc V. Atlantic Richfield Company, Ryan L. Hickey
Asarco Llc V. Atlantic Richfield Company, Ryan L. Hickey
Public Land & Resources Law Review
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liabiltiy Act, commonly known as CERCLA, facilitates cleanup of hazardous waste sites and those contaminated by other harmful substances by empowering the Environmental Protection Agency to identify responsible parties and require them to undertake or fund remediation. Because pollution sometimes occurrs over long periods of time by multiple parties, CERCLA also enables polluters to seek financial contribution from other contaminators of a particular site. The Ninth Circuit clarified the particuar circumstances under which contribution actions may arise in Asarco LLC v. Atlantic Richfield Co., holding non-CERCLA settlements may give rise to CERCLA contribution …