Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Environmental Law
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.
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 …
Atlantic Richfield Company V. Montana Second Judicial District Court, Molly Kelly
Atlantic Richfield Company V. Montana Second Judicial District Court, Molly Kelly
Public Land & Resources Law Review
Landowners in Opportunity, Montana sought restoration damages from ARCO, Anaconda Copper Mining Company’s successor, to their property from over a century of processing ore at the Anaconda Smelter. ARCO argued that CERCLA preempted and barred any claim for restoration damages. The Montana Supreme Court held: landowners could bring their state common law claims seeking restoration damages; the state district court had subject matter jurisdiction; and landowners’ proposed restoration fund did not challenge EPA’s selected remedy under CERCLA.