Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago v. North American Galvanizing & Coatings Incorporated’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 2 district ·

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. “In Akzo, the plaintiff, before bringing suit against another PRP, had been the subject of an EPA administrative order under § 106 requiring Akzo Coatings and several other “liable persons” to conduct certain emergency removal activities. [30 F.3d] at 762. Here, by contrast, there has been no EPA order and no proceeding apportioning necessary costs of response to Metropolitan Water. Thus, unlike in Akzo, Metropolitan Water has not been compelled to initiate cleanup or repay the EPA, and Metropolitan Water’s action against North American is not an action “for an appropriate division of the payment one of them has been compelled to make.” Id. at 764.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 572 F. Supp. 2d 1034 - Appleton Papers Inc. v. George A. Whiting Paper Co.

2. “In 1986, Congress amended CERCLA by way of SARA to authorize expressly a contribution action. See SARA, Pub.L. No. 99-499, 100 Stat. 1613. The provision allowing for contribution states in relevant part: “Any person may seek contribution from any other person who is liable or potentially liable under section 9607(a) of this title, during or following any civil action under section 9606 of this title or under section 9607(a) of this title.” 42 U.S.C. § 9613 (f)(1). In actions under this provision [section 113], the court allocates costs using equitable principles. Liability is several, as opposed to Section 107(a)’s joint and several scheme.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 572 F. Supp. 2d 1034 - Appleton Papers Inc. v. George A. Whiting Paper Co.

3. “Nevertheless, one of two outcomes would follow from a landowner suit under § 107(a): either the facts would establish that the landowner was truly blameless, in which case the other PRPs would be entitled to bring a suit under § 113(f) within three years of the judgment to establish their liability among themselves, or the facts would show that the landowner was also partially responsible, in which case it would not be entitled to recover under its § 107(a) theory and only the § 113(f) claim would go forward.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 661 F. Supp. 2d 989 - Evansville Greenway & Remediation Trust v. Southern Indiana Gas & Electric Co.