Legal Opinion
United States v. Kramer
District Court, D. New Jersey
Decided January 29, 1997No. Civil 89-4340 (JBS), 89-4380 (JBS)PublishedCited by 19 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
SIMANDLE, District Judge:
Presently before the court in this Superfund cost-recovery action is a motion in limine brought by certain of the direct defendants in this case 1 (“Direct Defendants”). The Direct Defendants’ motion asks the court to resolve the following issue of law prior to the commencement of trial in this case:
Whether, as a matter of law, the orphan share of responsibility for response costs (however and in whatever amount that share may ultimately be defined or determined to be) must be borne in its entirety by the direct defendants and not to any extent by the…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- United States v. Alcan Aluminum Corp.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1992
- United States v. KramerDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1991
- United States v. R.W. Meyer, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1991
- United States v. Rohm & Haas Co.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1989
- United States v. Cannons Engineering Corp.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1989
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- United States v. Compaction Systems Corp.District Court, D. New Jersey · 2000
- Litgo New Jersey Inc. v. Commissioner New Jersey Department of Environmental ProtectionCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2013
- United States v. DavisDistrict Court, D. Rhode Island · 1998
- Martignetti v. Haigh-Farr, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1997
- ASHLEY II OF CHARLESTON, LLC v. PCS Nitrogen, Inc.District Court, D. South Carolina · 2011
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.