Legal Opinion

United States v. Township of Brighton

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Decided March 13, 2002No. 00-2175PublishedCited by 13 opinions

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

  1. United States v. BestfoodsSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
  2. United States v. Township of BrightonCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1998
  3. Allard Enterprises, Inc. v. Advanced Programming Resources, Inc. Barry HeagrenCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2001
  4. Brunet v. City of ColumbusCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1995

4Cited by13 opinions

  1. Mitan v. DuvalCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2009
  2. United States v. Ahmed BrikaCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2007
  3. United States v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2008
  4. Geoffrey Fieger v. Carl GromekCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2010
  5. MRP Props., LLC v. United StatesDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2018

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

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

Powered by the Exa API