We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
In cooperation with Association of Corporate Counsel
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-3 of 3

Bona fide prospective purchaser defense rejected by Fourth Circuit because purchaser did not exercise appropriate care after closing

  • Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 8 2013

An owner of real property claiming the bona fide prospective purchaser (BFPP) defense under Section 107(r)(1) of CERCLA has the burden of

Rapanos wetlands confusion: Third Circuit accentuates the circuit split

  • Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 4 2011

When the United States Supreme Court issued its wetlands defining decision in Rapanos v. United States, environmental practitioners, real estate developers, and consultants believed that boundaries would be set for determining when a wetland was regulated under the Clean Water Act

Ohio environmental statutes of limitation: did the Ohio Supreme Court affect environmental claims?

  • Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 10 2011

The Ohio Supreme Court’s decision on April 27 in Flagstar Bank, F.S.B. v. Airline Union’s Mortgage Company, et al, 2011-Ohio-1961, raises interesting environmental questions