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.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance



Results: 1-10 of 169

Federal District Court rules that parties cannot “slice and dice” their cleanup costs between CERCLA Sections 107 and 113
  • Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
  • USA
  • July 20 2015

In Ford Motor Co., et al. v. Mich. Consolidated Gas Co., et al., Case No. 08-13503, E.D. Mich. (Feb. 10, 2015), the U.S. District Court for the


Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals throws out PM 2.5 attainment status for Cincinnati
  • Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
  • USA
  • July 15 2015

On July 14, 2015, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Sierra Club had standing to challenge EPA’s determination that the Cincinnati


Court applies volumetric apportionment under CERCLA in lieu of joint and several liability
  • Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
  • USA
  • June 8 2015

In United States v. NCR Corp., a Wisconsin District Court held that recent 7th Circuit guidance in the wake of Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway


Wisconsin District Court paves the way for apportionment of harm under CERCLA in the Seventh Circuit
  • Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
  • USA
  • June 4 2015

NCR Corporation recently avoided joint and several liability under CERCLA for its contribution to PCB contamination in the Lower Fox River


Landowners environmental liability for tenants’ misdeeds
  • Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
  • USA
  • May 8 2015

Landowners who know their properties are contaminated may be liable for damages, even if they didn't contribute directly to the pollution, according


Indiana Court of Appeals upholds trial victory for Taft client in environmental contamination suit
  • Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
  • USA
  • April 15 2015

In a case that examines the limits of liability for environmental cleanup costs under Indiana’s Environmental Legal Action Statute (“ELA”), the


Parent corporation’s prior assertions of domination create “alter ego” scenario, opens door for indirect successor liability under CERCLA
  • Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
  • USA
  • March 26 2015

In Cyprus Amax Minerals Co. v. TCI Pacific Comm. Inc., No. 4:11-cv-00252-CVE-PJC (N.D. Ok., Feb. 2, 2015), the U.S. District Court for the Northern


Burlington Northern Limits on “arranger” liability bleed into California statutory law
  • Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
  • USA
  • March 24 2015

In 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion that fundamentally changed the scope of liability for "arrangers" under the federal Comprehensive


Sixth Circuit rules Clean Water Act’s permit shield can protect general permit holders from liability
  • Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
  • USA
  • March 16 2015

The 6th Circuit recently ruled that facilities holding a Clean Water Act (“CWA”) Section 402 general permit one of two types of National Pollutant


Seventh Circuit applies Indiana choice of law rules to deny insurance coverage for contamination at an Indiana manufacturing facility
  • Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
  • USA
  • March 9 2015

Hoosier land owners sleep well at night knowing that they are insured against liability for environmental contamination because Indiana does not