In Nurad, the court held that "a party who possessed the authority to abate the damage caused by the disposal of hazardous substances but who declined to actually exercise that authority by undertaking efforts at a cleanup" is liable under CERCLA.
Summary of this case from Ebmud v. Dept. of CommerceNo. 92-356.
October 19, 1992.
C.A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 966 F. 2d 837.
In Nurad, the court held that "a party who possessed the authority to abate the damage caused by the disposal of hazardous substances but who declined to actually exercise that authority by undertaking efforts at a cleanup" is liable under CERCLA.
Summary of this case from Ebmud v. Dept. of Commercehiring of younger employee because of changed business circumstances "does not mean that [the defendant] replaced [the plaintiff] in any sense relevant to inferring age-based discrimination"
Summary of this case from Goss v. George Washington Univ.In Nurad, the owner was denied reimbursement from tenants for costs incurred in removing underground storage tanks ("USTs") because the tenants did not have authority over the USTs or their contents.
Summary of this case from Northwestern Mut. v. Atlantic ResearchFull title:MUMAW v. NURAD, INC
Court:U.S.
Date published: Oct 19, 1992
See United States v. Waste Indus., Inc., 734 F.2d 159, 164-65 (4th Cir. 1984) (migration of hazardous…
Simpson v. Ernst YoungIn the absence of a conflict of material fact, it is appropriate for the court to resolve the issue as a…