New York v. Shore Realty
Corp. case brief
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
759 F.2d 1032 (2d Cir. 1985)
CASE SYNOPSIS: Appellants,
a corporation and a stockholder, challenged a partial summary
judgment order of the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York on appellee State's claim for response costs
under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C.S. §§ 9601-9657 .
FACTS: Appellants bought the site on which they knew hazardous waste was stored. The lower court ordered appellants to remove the waste and held them liable for the State's response costs. The court found that appellants were liable under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C.S. §§ 9601-9657, for the response costs, even though they did not own the site at the time of the disposal and did not cause the release of the waste. As hazardous waste was leaking into the ground from earlier spills, the State was responding to a release under CERCLA. Inclusion on the National Priorities List was not a requirement for recovery of response costs, and states could recover costs. Injunctive relief was not available to states under CERCLA, but was available under state public nuisance law. The stockholder was liable as an operator under CERCLA because he managed the corporation.
CONCLUSION: The court affirmed the lower court's grant of partial summary judgment, finding that appellants could be liable as owners for response costs even though they did not own the site at the time of disposal and did not cause the release of the hazardous waste.
FACTS: Appellants bought the site on which they knew hazardous waste was stored. The lower court ordered appellants to remove the waste and held them liable for the State's response costs. The court found that appellants were liable under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C.S. §§ 9601-9657, for the response costs, even though they did not own the site at the time of the disposal and did not cause the release of the waste. As hazardous waste was leaking into the ground from earlier spills, the State was responding to a release under CERCLA. Inclusion on the National Priorities List was not a requirement for recovery of response costs, and states could recover costs. Injunctive relief was not available to states under CERCLA, but was available under state public nuisance law. The stockholder was liable as an operator under CERCLA because he managed the corporation.
CONCLUSION: The court affirmed the lower court's grant of partial summary judgment, finding that appellants could be liable as owners for response costs even though they did not own the site at the time of disposal and did not cause the release of the hazardous waste.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment