United States v. Price
District Court, D. New Jersey
1Opinion of the Court
BROTMAN, District Judge.
For fundamental and deeply rooted psychological reasons, as well as more mundane utilitarian considerations, it is characteristic of man to bury that which he fears and wishes to rid himself of. In the past, this engrained pattern of behavior has generally proven harmless and, indeed, has often led man to restore to the earth the substances he had removed from it. In today’s industrialized society, however, the routine practice of burying highly toxic chemical wastes has resulted in serious threats to the environment and to public health. See Note, An Analysis of…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Sampson v. MurraySupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Middlesex County Sewerage Authority v. National Sea Clammers Assn.Supreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Hecht Co. v. BowlesSupreme Court of the United States · 1944
- Texas Industries, Inc. v. Radcliff Materials, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Goodman v. Mead Johnson & Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1976
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by79 opinions
- United States v. Conservation Chemical Co.District Court, W.D. Missouri · 1985
- United States v. Northeastern Pharmaceutical & Chemical Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1986
- Maswamba Musikiwamba v. Essi, Inc. And Shalabh KumarCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1985
- Francisco Pujol v. Shearson/american Express, Inc., Appeal of Ana Bonelli De PujolCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1989
- United States v. PriceCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1982
74 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.