United States v. Rohm and Haas Co.
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
DECISION UNDER FED.R.CIV.P. 52(a)
LUDWIG, District Judge.
This is a declaratory judgment action under § 107(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a), to recover EPA oversight costs incurred in substantial part prior to an administrative consent order entered into under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. § 6901 et seq. 1 Jurisdiction is federal ques tion. 42 U.S.C. § 9613(b); 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331,1345. On August 5, 1991, a bench trial was held in which the sole fact issue concerned whether the settlement embodied in the…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Astoria Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. SoliminoSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- United States v. Conservation Chemical Co.District Court, W.D. Missouri · 1985
- United States v. R.W. Meyer, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1989
- Westwood Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. National Fuel Gas Distribution CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1992
- United States v. Northeastern Pharmaceutical & Chemical Co.District Court, W.D. Missouri · 1984
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- United States v. Rohm and Haas Company Rohm and Haas Delaware Valley, Inc. Chemical Properties, Inc. Bristol Township AuthorityCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1993
- Reading Co. v. City of PhiladelphiaDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1993
- California Ex Rel. California Department of Toxic Substances Control v. Hyampom Lumber Co.District Court, E.D. California · 1995
- Union Carbide Corp. v. Thiokol Corp.District Court, S.D. Georgia · 1994
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. United StatesDistrict Court, S.D. Texas · 2015
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.