Legal Opinion

United States v. Alcan Aluminum Corp., Basf Corp. Beazer Materials and Services, Inc. Borg-Warner Corp. Carrier Corp. Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc. Chemical Management, Inc. Chrysler Motors Corp. Dana Corp. Dart Industries, Inc. Exxon Corp. Ford Motor Company Goulds Pumps, Inc. Hitchcock Gas Engine Company, Inc. Ingersoll-Rand Neapco, Inc. Rome Strip Steel Co., Inc. The Stanley Works, Inc. Trw, Inc. United Technologies Chemical Management, Inc., Counter-Claimant. Chemical Management, Inc. Cross-Claimant v. United States of America Counter-Defendant, Alcan Aluminum Corp. Basf Corp. Beazer Materials and Services, Inc. Borg-Warner Corp. Carrier Corp. Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc. Chrysler Motors Corp. Dana Corp. Dart Industries, Inc. Exxon Corp. Ford Motor Company Goulds Pumps, Inc. Hitchcock Gas Engine Company, Inc. Ingersoll-Rand Neapco, Inc. Rome Strip Steel Co., Inc. The Stanley Works, Inc. Trw, Inc. United Technologies Cross-Defendants, Neapco, Inc. Counter-Claimant. Neapco, Inc. Cross-Claimant v. United States of America Counter-Defendant, Alcan Aluminum Corp. Basf Corp. Beazer Materials and Services, Inc. Borg-Warner Corp. Carrier Corp. Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc. Chemical Management, Inc. Chrysler Motors Corp. Dana Corp. Dart Industries, Inc. Exxon Corp. Ford Motor Company Goulds Pumps, Inc. Hitchcock Gas Engine Company, Inc. Ingersoll-Rand Rome Strip Steel Co. Inc. The Stanley Works, Inc. Trw, Inc. United Technologies Cross-Defendants, Alcan Aluminum Corporation

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Decided July 27, 1992No. 91-5481PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

964 F.2d 252

35 ERC 1073, 22 Envtl. L. Rep. 21,124

UNITED STATES of America

v.

ALCAN ALUMINUM CORP., BASF Corp.; Beazer Materials and

Services, Inc.; Borg-Warner Corp.; Carrier Corp.;

Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc.; Chemical Management,

Inc.; Chrysler Motors Corp.; Dana Corp.; Dart Industries,

Inc.; Exxon Corp.; Ford Motor Company; Goulds Pumps,

Inc.; Hitchcock Gas Engine Company, Inc.; Ingersoll-Rand;

Neapco, Inc.; Rome Strip Steel Co., Inc.; the Stanley

Works, Inc.; TRW, Inc.; United Technologies Chemical

Management, Inc., Counter-claimant.

CHEMICAL MANAGEMENT, INC. Cross-claimant,

v.

UNITED STATES of…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
  3. The State of New York v. Shore Realty Corp. And Donald LeograndeCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1985
  4. United States v. Monsanto Co.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1988
  5. Amoco Oil Company v. Borden, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1990

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Gerst v. MarshallSupreme Court of Iowa · 1996
  2. Ekotek Site PRP Committee v. SelfDistrict Court, D. Utah · 1995
  3. United States v. United Nuclear Corp.District Court, D. New Mexico · 1992
  4. State of Ariz. v. Motorola, Inc.District Court, D. Arizona · 1992

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

Powered by the Exa API