Legal Opinion

Berg v. Popham

Alaska Supreme Court

Decided May 20, 2005No. S-10815PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

CARPENETI, Justice.

I. INTRODUCTION

The Ninth Circuit has certified the following two questions to this court:

1. Alaska Statute section 46.03.822(a)(4), in contrast to 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(3), contains the word “or” preceding the phrase “by any other party or entity.” In light of the inclusion of the word “or,” does section 46.03.822(a)(4) require that a person own, possess, have “authority to control,” or “have a duty to dispose of’ the hazardous substance that is released, before that entity can be subject to arranger liability as is required under 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(3)?

2. If the…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Seminole Tribe of Florida v. FloridaSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
  2. Pennsylvania v. Union Gas Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1989
  3. 3550 Stevens Creek Associates, a Limited Partnership v. Barclays Bank of CaliforniaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1990
  4. Amcast Industrial Corporation and Elkhart Products Corporation v. Detrex CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1993
  5. Florida Power & Light Co. v. Allis Chalmers Corp.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1990

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Vine Street, LLC v. Keeling Ex Rel. Estate of KeelingDistrict Court, E.D. Texas · 2006
  2. Federal Insurance v. American Hardware Mutual InsuranceNevada Supreme Court · 2008
  3. Schiel v. Union Oil Co. of CaliforniaAlaska Supreme Court · 2009
  4. City of Moses Lake v. United StatesDistrict Court, E.D. Washington · 2006
  5. Edenshaw v. Safeway, Inc.Alaska Supreme Court · 2008

5 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