Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
United States v. Dico, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Decided December 10, 2015No. 14-2762Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partLoken, Circuit Judge
I concur in Parts II.A. and II.B.2. of Judge Bye’s opinion. I also agree that Dico is subject to an award of civil penalties for willful violation of an administrative order but would remand for redeter-mination of the amount of the penalties and therefore respectfully dissent in part from Part II.B.l.
A. Arranger Liability. I join Part II.A. of Judge Bye’s opinion but add the following to clarify my interpretation of the Supreme Court’s controlling decision in Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. v. United States, 556 U.S. 599, 608-13, 129 S.Ct. 1870, 173 L.Ed.2d 812 (2009), where the Court addressed…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- NCR Corp. v. George A. Whiting Paper Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2014
- United States v. General Electric Co.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2012
- Team Enterprises, LLC v. Western Investment Real Estate TrustCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2011
- Consolidation Coal Co. v. Georgia Power Co.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2015
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.