United States v. Township of Brighton
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
2Per curiam
This case, involving the potential liability of Brighton Township, Michigan, for recovery costs under § 107(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a), is before this panel a second time. See United States v. Township of Brighton, 153 F.3d 307 (6th Cir.1998) [hereinafter “Brighton I ”]. We hold that the district court failed to obey the mandate of our Brighton I opinion on remand. For this reason, we VACATE the district court’s judgment and REMAND for further proceedings. We also specifically instruct the district…
3Cases cited4 opinions
- United States v. BestfoodsSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
- United States v. Township of BrightonCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1998
- Allard Enterprises, Inc. v. Advanced Programming Resources, Inc. Barry HeagrenCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2001
- Brunet v. City of ColumbusCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1995
4Cited by13 opinions
- Mitan v. DuvalCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2009
- United States v. Ahmed BrikaCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2007
- United States v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2008
- Geoffrey Fieger v. Carl GromekCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2010
- MRP Props., LLC v. United StatesDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2018
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.