Legal Opinion
Gould Inc. v. a & M Battery and Tire Service
District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
Decided September 14, 1995No. 3 CV-91-1714PublishedCited by 26 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
CONABOY, District Judge.
Presently before the Court is a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed on behalf of two of the defense groups in the above-captioned action. The motioning defense groups are the Marjol Site PRP Group and the Rosenn Jenkins Joint Defense Group. 1 In its motion, the moving defense groups ask this Court to disallow Plaintiff Gould from bringing a cost recovery action under § 107 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. § 9607 (hereinafter “§ 107”). The moving Defendants contend that, as a…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness SocietySupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Key Tronic Corp. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- Amoco Oil Company v. Borden, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1990
- United Technologies Corporation v. Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1994
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- United States v. Compaction Systems Corp.District Court, D. New Jersey · 2000
- Martignetti v. Haigh-Farr, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1997
- SC Holdings, Inc. v. A.A.A. Realty Co.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1996
- Clear Lake Properties v. Rockwell International Corp.District Court, S.D. Texas · 1997
- Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. National Semiconductor Corp.District Court, N.D. California · 1999
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.