Berg v. Popham’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 5 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[t]his difference between Alaska and federal law reflects our legislature’s intent to expand liability beyond CERC-LA’s standards, even if section .822’s legislative history is silent as to the interpretation and application of arranger liability specifically. While section .822 was modeled on CERCLA generally, it was revised in the months following the Exxon Valdez catastrophe, so its scope would be broader than that of its forebear ... In light of the textual distinctions between the federal and state statutes, and based upon our review of the legislative history of section .822, we adopt a standard of arranger liability that is broader than that of the Ninth Circuit. Like most courts assigning arranger liability under CERCLA, we hold that arranger liability under AS 46.03.822(a)(4) requires some “actual involvement in the decision to dispose of waste” that was substantial or integral. However, we note that actual involvement in a decision to dispose of waste can encompass involvement in deciding how to dispose of waste or in facilitating such disposal. Involvement in deciding how to dispose of waste can, in turn, include actions such as designing, installing, or connecting a system that disposes of waste on behalf of a third party.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Berg v. Popham · 458 F. Supp. 2d 1198 - City of Moses Lake v. United States

2. “the owner of, and the person having control over, the hazardous substance at the time of the release. 23 Id. (citing 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a) (West 2004)). 24 The Alaska Supreme Court explained that, in interpreting AS § 46.03.822(a)(4), "we cannot disregard subsection .822(a)(1) or render it redundant. Because Alaska treats as PRPs those who have ownership and control of a hazardous substance as well as those who arrange for its disposal, these classifications cannot be synonymous.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Berg v. Popham · Berg

3. “The Alaska Supreme Court also stated: [T]he Alaska legislature clearly intended section .822 to contain some exception from arranger liability for useful products .... The legislature enacted a law specifically designed to avoid imposing liability on “virtually everyone in the chain of commerce who had ever handled [a released hazardous] substance, even if that person had absolutely nothing to do with the release.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Berg v. Popham · Berg