Legal Opinion

United States v. Sterling Centrecorp Inc.

District Court, E.D. California

Decided June 24, 2013No. 2:08-cv-02556-MCE-JFMPublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR., Chief Judge.

I.THE ELEMENTS OF CERCLA LIABILITY1

1. This Court has previously held that in order to establish liability for response costs under Section 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a), Plaintiffs must make a four-part showing. First, Plaintiffs must prove that the Site is a “facility” as defined by CERCLA. Second, they must show that a “release” or “threatened release” of a hazardous substance from the facility has occurred. Third, Plaintiffs must establish that the release or threatened release caused Plaintiffs to incur response costs. Fourth…

2Cases cited93 opinions

  1. International Shoe Co. v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
  2. Omni Capital International, Ltd. v. Rudolf Wolff & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1987
  3. United States v. BestfoodsSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
  4. 95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7276, 95 Daily Journal D.A.R. 12,439 Elizabeth Ballard v. Michael E. Savage, and Royal Trust Bank (Austria)Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1995
  5. Ray v. Alad Corp.California Supreme Court · 1977

88 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Gerritsen v. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.District Court, C.D. California · 2015
  2. Alsco v. Fatty's BarIdaho Supreme Court · 2020
  3. Northern States Power Co. v. City of AshlandDistrict Court, W.D. Wisconsin · 2015
  4. Clarke v. Pacific Gas & Electric CompanyDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2021
  5. The Successor Agency to The Former Emeryville Redevelopment Agency and The City of Emeryville v. Swagelok CompanyDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2023

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API