Legal Opinion
United States v. Montrose Chemical Corp.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided March 21, 1995No. Nos. 93-55824, 93-55876PublishedCited by 51 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HAWKINS, Circuit Judge:
We consider here the fairness and reasonableness of a settlement in an environmental action brought under CERCLA.1 Appellants challenge the settlement (involving other parties) because, they claim, the district court did not have sufficient information before it to properly determine whether the decree— which provided for a $45.7 million settlement with the Los Angeles County Sanitation District and approximately 150 local governmental entities — was “reasonable, fair, and consistent with the purposes that CERCLA is intended to serve.” See United States v. Cannons…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- City of Detroit v. Grinnell Corporation, Manhattan-Ward, Incorporated v. Grinnell Corporation, 1225 Vine Street Building, Inc. v. Grinnell CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1974
- Kevin F. Marchand v. Mercy Medical Center, an Idaho Corporation, and Neil K. Farris, D.O.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1994
- United States v. Cannons Engineering Corp.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1990
- United States v. Rohm & Haas Co.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1989
- United States of America v. Charles George Trucking, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1994
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by51 opinions
- Turtle Island Restoration Network v. United States Department of CommerceCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2012
- State of Arizona v. Raytheon CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2014
- Arizona v. Components Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1995
- United States v. Aerojet General Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2010
- United States of America Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Resources v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority ("Septa"), National Railroad Passenger Corporation ("Amtrak"), and Consolidated Rail Corporation ("Conrail") v. City of Philadelphia Penn Central Corporation, Third-Party Penn Central Corporation, Now Known as American Premier Underwriters, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2000
46 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.