Legal Opinion
Lutz v. Chromatex, Inc.
District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
Decided June 9, 1989No. Civ. 88-1764PublishedCited by 46 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
NEALON, District Judge.
Currently before the court in this action filed pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq. (CERCLA), and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 6901 et seq. (RCRA), are defendants’ motions to dismiss plaintiffs’ amended complaint. For the reasons that follow, defendants’ motions to dismiss will be granted in part and plaintiffs will be required to file a second amended complaint.
BACKGROUND
This civil action was commenced on behalf of sixty-six (66)…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Gwaltney of Smithfield, Ltd. v. Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Ascon Properties, Inc. v. Mobil Oil Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1989
- Massarsky v. General Motors Corp.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1983
- Exxon Corp. v. HuntSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by46 opinions
- Werlein v. United StatesDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 1990
- State of Colorado v. Idarado Mining Company, and Third-Party v. Baumgartner Oil Company, Third-PartyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1990
- City of Health, Ohio v. Ashland Oil, Inc.District Court, S.D. Ohio · 1993
- Wagner v. Anzon, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1996
- Gache v. Town of Harrison, NYDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1993
41 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.