Legal Opinion
United States v. Kramer
District Court, D. New Jersey
Decided October 31, 1995No. Civil 89-4340 (JBS), 89-4380 (JBS)PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
SIMANDLE, District Judge:
Presently before the court in this Superfund cost-recovery action is the motion in limine of the plaintiff United States to narrow issues for trial pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f), 16(c), and 57. The plaintiff asks this court to make two findings: 1) that it is the law of this case that defendants’ arguments that costs are excessive, unreasonable, dupli-cative, not cost-effective, and improper do not allege inconsistency with the National Contingency Plan (“NCP”), do not provide a defense to a cost recovery action under section 107(a) of the Comprehensive…
2Cases cited36 opinions
- Russello v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Arizona v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Barlow v. CollinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Messenger v. AndersonSupreme Court of the United States · 1912
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Estate of Reddert v. United StatesDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1996
- United States v. KramerDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1997
- New York State Electric & Gas Corp. v. FirstEnergy Corp.District Court, N.D. New York · 2011
- Interfaith Community Organization v. Alliedsignal, Inc.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1996
- United States v. KramerDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1998
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.