Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Animal Law
Asarco Llc V. Atlantic Richfield Co., Llc, Taylor A. Simpson
Asarco Llc V. Atlantic Richfield Co., Llc, Taylor A. Simpson
Public Land & Resources Law Review
In 2009, Asarco reached a settlement agreement with the Environmental Protection Agency for the arsenic-contaminated East Helena lead smelting facility. As part of the settlement, Asarco was responsible for $111.4 million in cleanup and remediation expenses. Following this payment, Asarco brought a contribution claim under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act against Atlantic Richfield. Finally, in 2020, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that Asarco’s remediation expenses of $111.4 million were not eligible for contribution because the costs were not fully incurred. The Ninth Circuit stated that only incurred or concrete, non-speculative future costs can be eligible …
Preview—Atlantic Richfield Company V. Christian: The Intersection Of Superfund And State-Law Restoration Claims, Emily M. Mcculloch
Preview—Atlantic Richfield Company V. Christian: The Intersection Of Superfund And State-Law Restoration Claims, Emily M. Mcculloch
Public Land & Resources Law Review
The Supreme Court of the United States will hear oral arguments in this matter on Tuesday, December 3, 2019, at 11:00 a.m. in the Supreme Court Building in Washington, D.C. Lisa S. Blatt will likely appear for the Petitioner. Joseph R. Palmore will likely appear for the Respondents. Solicitor General Noel J. Francisco will likely argue on behalf of the United States.
Public Employees For Environmental Responsibility V. United States Epa, F. Aaron Rains
Public Employees For Environmental Responsibility V. United States Epa, F. Aaron Rains
Public Land & Resources Law Review
Prior to 2016, the EPA acknowledged that human activities significantly contribute to climate change. However, on March 9, 2017, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt announced that significant debate regarding the issue remained in the scientific community. In response to these statements, a nonprofit organization filed a FOIA request with the EPA seeking any documents or records Pruitt may have used when formulating his statements or substantiating his position. The EPA refused to comply with the request, citing undue burden and improper interrogation and this action followed. Upon review, the District Court for the District of Columbia found the plaintiff’s FOIA request …