Legal Opinion
United States v. Meyer
District Court, W.D. Michigan
Decided August 26, 1999No. 1:97-cv-00526PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
ENSLEN, Chief Judge.
In this action under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601 et seq., the United States seeks to recover its response costs for containment and remediation actions at a contaminated site in Cadillac, Michigan. Both the United States and Defendant Robert W. Meyer, Jr. have filed motions for summary judgment. After considering the issues, the Court will grant the United States’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and deny Meyer’s motion.
FACTS
This case involves a Superfund site located in Cadillac,…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- United States v. BestfoodsSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
- Tom PIERCE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY and Capital Holding Corporation, Defendants-AppelleesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1994
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Castaic Lake Water Agency v. Whittaker Corp.District Court, C.D. California · 2003
- United States v. Chrysler Corp.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 2001
- Adobe Lumber, Inc. v. HellmanDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2009
- Seattle Times Co. v. Leathercare, Inc.District Court, W.D. Washington · 2018
- United States v. Chrysler Corp.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 2001
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.