Legal Opinion
Boeing Company, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. Cascade Corporation, Opinion-Appellant-Cross-Appellee
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided March 24, 2000No. 96-35246, 96-35304PublishedCited by 102 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
KLEINFELD, Circuit Judge:
This case involves an action for contribution under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). The Boeing Company and Cascade Corporation contaminated porous soil, called an aquifer. The contamination overlapped. Both companies spent a great deal of money investigating and beginning the cleaning. The issue in this case is how their respective expenses ought to be allocated in a contribution action.
FACTS
Boeing sued Cascade for contribution to offset Boeing’s higher expenses so far, and for a declaratory judgment allocating…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Anderson v. City of Bessemer CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Price Waterhouse v. HopkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Wilton v. Seven Falls Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1995
- Maryland Casualty Co. v. Pacific Coal & Oil Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Key Tronic Corp. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by102 opinions
- Umg Recordings, Inc. v. Shelter Capital Partners LlcCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2013
- United States v. William M. Davis, Ashland, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2001
- Carson Harbor Village, Ltd. v. Unocal CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001
- City of Colton v. American Promotional Events, Inc.-WestCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2010
- United States v. Shell Oil Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002
97 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.