Legal Opinion

United States v. Atlantic Richfield

District Court, S.D. Texas

Decided January 18, 2001No. Civ.A. H-98-0408Published

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER

GILMORE, District Judge.

Pending before the Court are Plaintiffs’ cross-motion for partial summary judgment and Defendants’ motions for summary judgment. (Instrument Nos. 332, 300, 302 and 318). Based on the submissions of the parties and the applicable law, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs’ motion should be GRANTED and Defendants’ motions should be DENIED.

I

This action commenced as a cost recovery suit by the United States and the State of Texas (collectively, the “Government”) under Sections 104 and 107 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, 42…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  4. Lujan v. National Wildlife FederationSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
  5. Southeastern Community College v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1979

11 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