A&W Smelter & Refiners, Inc. v. Clinton
146 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 1998)
A & W Smelter (A & W) possessed an ore pile at its processing facility in the Mojave Desert. The ore included small amounts of silver and gold, some naturally occurring lead, and slag--a waste product of smelting. A &... {Continue reading}

AGG Enterprises v. Washington County
281 F.3d 1324 (9th Cir. 2002)
The district court granted AGG Enterprises (AGG) a permanent injunction against the city of Beaverton (Beaverton), Oregon and Washington County, Oregon (defendants) enjoining the defendants "from enforcing their trash-hauling regulations against plaintiff . . . AGG."[1] The district court found that § 14501(c)... {Continue reading}

ARC Ecology v. U. S. Dep't of Air Force
411 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2004)
ARC Ecology and the Filipino/American Coalition for Environmental Solutions, two non-profit environmental organizations, along with thirty-six citizens and residents of the Philippines (ARC Ecology) appealed the dismissal of their claim against the United States Department of the Air Force, Department... {Continue reading}

ARCO Environmental Remediation, LLC v. Montana
213 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2000)
ARCO Environmental Remediation, LLC (ARCO) appealed the district court's denial of it motion to remand its claim to state court, arguing the case was improperly removed. Reversing the district court, the Ninth Circuit held the district court lacked jurisdiction because... {Continue reading}

Ashoff v. City of Ukiah
130 F.3d 409 (9th Cir. 1997)
Ashoff and other citizens sued the City of Ukiah (city) for injunctive relief, alleging that its solid waste disposal site violated the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),[1] Clean Water Act (CWA),[2] and state law. The district court granted the... {Continue reading}

Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Brown & Bryant, Inc.
159 F.3d 358 (9th Cir. 1998)
In this case, the Ninth Circuit revised a 1997 opinion[1] in which the court refused to assign successor-in-interest liability to the purchaser of interests of a liable party under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA).[2]... {Continue reading}

Atchison, Topeka, & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Brown & Bryant, Inc.
132 F.3d 1295 (9th Cir. 1997)
Railroad companies Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company and Southern Pacific Transportation Company (Railroads) brought a contribution action under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).[1] The Railroads sought contribution for costs due to soil contamination on... {Continue reading}

Beck v. Atlantic Richfield Co.
62 F.3d 1240 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 1568 (1996)
The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal without prejudice of claims filed under Montana law against the Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO) by a group of water users along the Clark ForkRiver in Montana. The court ordered the district court... {Continue reading}

Berg v. Popham
412 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2005)
David and Marge Berg, former owners of a dry cleaning business in Anchorage, Alaska, sued Maytag, the successor in interest of Norge, the manufacturer of equipment used in the Berg's business under both the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability... {Continue reading}

Boeing Co. v. Cascade Corp.,
207 F.3d 1177 (9th Cir. 2000)
Boeing Company sued Cascade Corporation in a contribution action under section 9613 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)[1] to recover pollution cleanup costs. Cascade appealed, challenging the trial court's determination of causation, the allocation of costs,... {Continue reading}

Cadillac Fairview/California, Inc. v. Dow Chemical Co.
299 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 2002)
Cadillac Fairview/California, Inc. (Cadillac) brought suit against Dow Chemical, Inc. (Dow), the United States, and several rubber manufacturers under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA)[1] for expenses related to the cleanup of wartime rubber-manufacturing soil... {Continue reading}

California Department of Toxic Substances Control v. Commercial Realty Projects, Inc.
309 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 2002), cert. dismissed,123 S. Ct. 2267 (2003)
The Cities of Buena Park, Hawthorne, Hermosa Beach, Huntington Park, Paramount, Redondo Beach, Seal Beach, South Gate, Torrance, Lynwood, Lawndale and Long Beach (the Cities) appealed the district court's denial of their motion to intervene in a consent decree proceeding.... {Continue reading}

California ex rel. California Department of Toxic Substances Control v. Campbell
319 F.3d 1161 (9th Cir. 2003)
The State of California filed suit against landowners for contamination of groundwater with trichloroethylene (TCE). The landowners in turn sued Louisiana-Pacific Corp. (LP) for contribution. The district court granted summary judgment for LP, holding that the landowners failed to raise... {Continue reading}

California v. Montrose Chemical Corp. of California
104 F.3d 1507 (9th Cir. 1997)
Defendant Montrose Chemical Corporation operated a DDT manufacturing plant in Torrance, California. The governments of California and the United States (Trustees) claimed that Montrose released 5.5 million pounds of DDT between 1947 and 1982 into Los Angeles and Long Beach... {Continue reading}

Carson Harbor Village Ltd. v. Unocal Corp.,
227 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. 2000)
The Ninth Circuit reversed summary judgment for defendants where plaintiffs sought recovery of cleanup costs and money damages for an inability to refinance polluted land. The court held that summary judgment was improper because genuine issues of material fact remained... {Continue reading}

Carson Harbor Village, Ltd. v. County of Los Angeles
433 F.3d 1260 (9th Cir. 2006)
Carson Harbor, owner of the Carson Harbor Village Mobile Home Park (the Property), filed suit against Los Angeles County, other local government entities, Unocal, and the former owners of the Property (collectively, "Los Angeles") to recover costs arising from the... {Continue reading}

Carson Harbor Village, Ltd. v. Unocal Corp.
270 F.3d 863 (9th Cir. 2001)
On rehearing en banc, the Ninth Circuit upheld summary judgment for the defendants who claimed that cleanup efforts by plaintiff Carson Harbor were not necessary. Although genuine issues of material fact remained as to whether plaintiff's response costs were necessary,... {Continue reading}

Covington v. Jefferson County
358 F.3d 626 (9th Cir. 2004)
The Covingtons sued Jefferson County, Idaho (County) and the District 7 Health Department (D7HD) under the Clean Air Act (CAA)[1] and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),[2] alleging that actions at the county dump across the street from their... {Continue reading}

Enron Oil Trading & Transportation Co. v. Walbrook Ins.
132 F.3d 526 (9th Cir. 1997)
Enron Oil Trading & Transportation Company brought a state indemnification action against its excess insurer under a commercial general liability policy. After the defendant removed the case to federal court, the District Court for the District of Montana granted the... {Continue reading}

Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. v. City of Lodi
302 F.3d 928 (9th Cir. 2002),cert. denied, 123 S. Ct. 1754 (2003)
Two insurers, Fireman's Fund Insurance Company (Fireman's Fund), and Unigard Insurance and Unigard Security Insurance Companies (Unigard), filed separate lawsuits against the City of Lodi, California (Lodi) and various public officials. The insurance companies claimed that a municipal ordinance, called... {Continue reading}

KFC Western v. Meghrig
49 F.3d 518 (9th Cir. 1995), rev'd, 116 S. Ct. 1251 (1996)
In this case the Ninth Circuit was called upon to address the scope and remedy of the citizen suit provision of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), section 7002. name="_ednref1" title="">[1] In a question of first impression, the... {Continue reading}

Kasza v. Whitman
325 F.3d 1178 (9th Cir. 2003)
Former employees of a classified Air Force facility brought an action against the Air Force and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), alleging violations of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).[1] The district court granted summary judgment for... {Continue reading}

Kennedy v. Southern California Edison Co.
219 F.3d 988 (9th Cir. 2000)
Joe Kennedy brought a wrongful death action against Southern California Edision Company (Cal Edison) and Combustion Engineering, Inc. for the death of his wife, Ellen Kennedy. Ellen Kennedy died in 1996 of chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML). From 1982 to 1990,... {Continue reading}

McClellan Ecological Seepage Situation v. Perry
47 F.3d 325 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 51 (1995)
A citizen group brought suit under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Clean Water Act (CWA), and California state environmental statutes, challenging a cleanup at the McClellan Air Force Base under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and... {Continue reading}

O'Connor v. Boeing North American, Inc.
311 F.3d 1139 (9th Cir. 2002)
Plaintiffs alleged that hazardous radioactive and nonradioactive substances produced by defendants, Boeing North American, Inc. and Rockwell International Corp., caused their illnesses. The specific issue on review was whether plaintiffs' claims were timely filed under California's statute of limitations. The... {Continue reading}

Pakootas v. Teck Cominco Metals
452 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2006)
Teck Cominco Metals, Ltd. (Teck), a Canadian company, sought interlocutory review of a district court's denial of its motion to dismiss an action brought by individual members of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation (Pakootas), in which the State... {Continue reading}

Pinal Creek Group v. Newmont Mining Corp.
118 F.3d 1298 (9th Cir. 1997)
Three mining companies collectively known as the "Pinal Creek Group" engaged in the voluntary cleanup of the Pinal Creek Drainage Basin near the towns of Globe and Miami, Arizona. In 1991, the Pinal Creek Group filed suit against other potentially... {Continue reading}

Reese v. Travelers Insurance Co.
129 F.3d 1056 (9th Cir. 1997)
An officer of a metal reclamation company sued the company's insurer, which refused to defend the company in a liability suit. The insurer refused to defend based on both an owned-property exclusion and a pollution exclusion contained in the company's... {Continue reading}

State of Arizona v. Components Inc.
66 F.3d 213 (9th Cir. 1995)
The State of Arizona entered into a settlement agreement with Nucor Corporations that resolved Nucor's liability under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) for ground water contamination within the West Central Phoenix State Superfund Study Area. Components... {Continue reading}

Systech Environmental Corp. v. EPA
55 F.3d 1466 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 910 (1996)
General Portland Cement, Inc. leased land from Tejon Ranchcorp to conduct a cement-making business. In 1982, Portland Cement began burning certain types of industrial wastes in its kiln. Systech Environmental Corporation collected waste from outside generators for Portland Cement... {Continue reading}

U. S. v. W.R. Grace & Co.
429 F.3d 1224 (9thCir. 2005)
W.R. Grace & Co. (Grace) appealed a district court ruling that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) properly characterized an asbestos cleanup that Grace was liable for, as a removal action under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA),[1] rather... {Continue reading}

United States v. ASARCO
214 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2000)
The United States appealed the district court's partial grant of summary judgment to defendants, who are various mine operators and mineral processing facilities. The district court held that the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)[1] statute of limitations... {Continue reading}

United States v. Chapman
146 F.3d 1166 (9th Cir. 1998)
Harold B. Chapman, Jr. manufactured small metal collars and stored and sold military and commercial surplus chemicals on his land in Washoe County, Nevada. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) began an investigation of his facility in 1989 at... {Continue reading}

United States v. Elias
269 F.3d 1003 (9th Cir. 2001)
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the defendant's conviction and 204-month sentence for violating the "knowing endangerment" provision of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).[1] The court emphasized that EPA does not yield its enforcement powers when it authorizes a state... {Continue reading}

United States v. Montrose Chemical Corp.
50 F.3d 741 (9th Cir. 1995)
The Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded the district court's approval of a Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) consent decree, finding that the district court lacked any information from which to determine that the settlement was fair... {Continue reading}

United States v. Omega Chemical Corp.
156 F.3d 994 (9th Cir. 1998)
In this case, the Ninth Circuit reversed a grant of summary judgment assessing civil penalties for alleged violations of the access and entry provisions of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).[1] The court held that because Omega... {Continue reading}

United States v. Shell Oil Co.
No. 00-55077, 2002 WL 1396519 (9th Cir. June 28, 2002).
The plaintiffs appealed and the defendants cross-appealed the district court's decision regarding Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)[1] liability for the cleanup of the McColl Superfund Site in Fullerton, California. The Ninth Circuit upheld the district court's finding... {Continue reading}

United States v. Van Loben Sels
198 F.3d 1161 (9th Cir. 1999)
Wilfred Page Van Loben Sels pled guilty to the negligent discharge of benzene-contaminated wastewater into the City of Los Angeles (the City) municipal sewer system in violation of section 307 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)[1] and section 64.30... {Continue reading}

Zurich American Insurance Co. v. Whittier Properties Inc.
356 F.3d 1132 (9th Cir. 2004)
Whittier Properties (Whittier) appealed from the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Zurich American Insurance Company (Zurich). The district court held that Whittier materially misrepresented information when applying to Zurich for insurance coverage of underground storage tanks... {Continue reading}