Legal Opinion
United States v. Chem-Dyne Corp.
District Court, S.D. Ohio
Decided October 14, 1983No. C-1-82-840PublishedCited by 187 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
CARL B. RUBIN, Chief Judge.
This matter is before the Court on the Motion of the defendants for Partial Summary Judgment under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. § 9607 (“CERCLA”). Plaintiff United States has sued 24 defendants, who allegedly generated or transported the hazardous substances located at the Chem-Dyne treatment facility, for reimbursement of the superfund money expended to institute remedial action at the site. In order to expedite discovery and trial preparation, the…
2Cases cited42 opinions
- Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Ernst & Ernst v. HochfelderSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Cannon v. University of ChicagoSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- Chrysler Corp. v. BrownSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by187 opinions
- Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- United States v. Monsanto Co.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1988
- Redwing Carriers, Inc. v. Saraland ApartmentsCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1996
- United States v. Alcan Aluminum Corp.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1992
- United States v. Conservation Chemical Co.District Court, W.D. Missouri · 1985
182 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.