Aviall Services, Inc. v. Cooper Industries, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
1DissentWiener, Circuit Judge
In reaching its holding that a PRP can only sue another PRP on a § 113(f)(1) contribution claim if a § 106 administrative order or § 107(a) action has been brought against it, the panel majority claims to have applied a “plain-meaning” analysis to the statute; yet it obviously has glossed over clear statutory language declaring that “[njothing in [§ 113(f)(1)] shall diminish the right of any person to bring an action for contribution in the absence of a civil action under [§ 106] ... or [§ 107(a)][,]"1 I respectfully dissent because I am convinced that a full and fair reading of § 113(f)(1)…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1998
- Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dept. of Health and Human ResourcesSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
- Morissette v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1952
- Gade v. National Solid Wastes Management Assn.Supreme Court of the United States · 1992
- United States v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.