Legal Opinion
Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Consolidated Rail Corp.
District Court, N.D. New York
Decided May 5, 2000No. 98-CV-1039PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
HURD, District Judge.
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation (“Niagara Mohawk”), commenced the instant action asserting causes of action under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601-9675 (“CERCLA”), N.Y. Navigation Law §§ 176(8) & 181(1), as well as common law claims for joint tortfeasor liability, indemnification, unjust enrichment, and public nuisance. Niagara Mohawk seeks recovery of costs it has incurred and will incur in the future with respect to its investigation…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Scheuer v. RhodesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Dubai Islamic Bank v. Citibank, N.A.District Court, S.D. New York · 2000
- City of Jersey City v. Consolidated Rail Corp.District Court, District of Columbia · 2010
- Consolidated Rail Corp. v. RAY, EX REL. BOYDDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2010
- Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Consolidated Rail Corp.District Court, N.D. New York · 2008
- City of Jersey City v. Consolidated Rail CorporationDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2010
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.