Whether apportioning CERCLA liability among potentially responsible parties requires a specific evidentiary showing or a reasonable basis, and what degree of proof establishes each PRP's apportioned share

The other side of the split

Decisions the acknowledging court(s) named as the opposing or joined side, quoted in the acknowledging opinion's own words.

• On the other side · 8th Cir.Control Data Corp. v. S.C.S.C. Corp.53 F.3d 930

  “According to some courts, proving up the precise proportion attributable to each PRP is a “very difficult proposition,” Control Data Corp.” — United States v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co., acknowledging the split

• On the other sideHercules247 F.3d 718

  “See Bell Petroleum, 3 F.3d at 903-04 (allowing estimation of the proportion of contamination produced by each of a series of successive operators of a facility, where reliable approximations were simple because there was a single chemical produced by the successive operators each of whom operated the facility similarly); see also Hercules, 247 F.3d at 719 (relying on Bell Petroleum, 3 F.3d at 895-96 , and holding that the defendant need not show that there was no possibility that it contributed to the harm, because certain approximations can suffice).” — United States v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co., acknowledging the split

• On the other sideChem-Nuclear292 F.3d 260
• On the other sideBell Petroleum3 F.3d 903

  “See Bell Petroleum, 3 F.3d at 903-04 (allowing estimation of the proportion of contamination produced by each of a series of successive operators of a facility, where reliable approximations were simple because there was a single chemical produced by the successive operators each of whom operated the facility similarly); see also Hercules, 247 F.3d at 719 (relying on Bell Petroleum, 3 F.3d at 895-96 , and holding that the defendant need not show that there was no possibility that it contributed to the harm, because certain approximations can suffice).” — United States v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co., acknowledging the split

• Declined to followTownship of Brighton153 F.3d 331

  “Judge Moore, concurring in the result in Township of Brighton, asserted that a court can never apportion liability for contamination at a single facility on the basis of geography.” — United States v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co., acknowledging the split

What the split turns on

Doctrines & tests:

arranger liability