Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- 1998 RCRA Decree (1)
- 2009 CERCLA Decree (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)
- Appeal (1)
- Arco (1)
- Army Corps of Engineers (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)
- CERCLA (1)
- Circuit Split (1)
- Clean Water Act (1)
- Cleanup Costs (1)
- Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (1)
- Contamination (1)
- Contribution Action (1)
- Corrective Action (1)
- Dana L. Christensen (1)
- Department of Defense (1)
- District of Montana (1)
- East Helena (1)
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Legislation
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 …
National Association Of Manufacturers V. Department Of Defense, Summer L. Carmack
National Association Of Manufacturers V. Department Of Defense, Summer L. Carmack
Public Land & Resources Law Review
In an attempt to provide consistency to the interpretation and application of the statutory phrase “waters of the United States,” as used in the Clean Water Act, the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers together passed the WOTUS Rule. Unfortunately, the Rule has created more confusion than clarity, resulting in a number of lawsuits challenging substantive portions of the Rule’s language. National Association of Manufacturers v. Department of Defense did not address those substantive challenges, but instead determined whether those claims challenging the Rule must be filed in federal district courts or federal courts of appeals. In its decision, the …