green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 3×
9.4 score
G Cite
cited 3× by 1 distinct case ·
“it is the authority to control the handling and disposal of hazardous substances that is critical under the statutory scheme”
cited 3× by 1 distinct case ·
“Ozark Equip. Co.”
cited 3× by 1 distinct case ·
“Ozark Restaurant”
Treatment trajectory · 1987 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1987
2006
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 42 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
In Re Diamond Mortg. Corp. of Illinois
(2×)
Acquisition, Inc. v. Eastway Delivery Service, Inc., 817 F.2d 1142 (5th Cir.1987); but see In re Ozark Restaurant Equipment Co., 816 F.2d 1222, 1228 (8th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 848 , 108 S.Ct. 147 , 98 L.Ed.2d 102 (1987); Barnett v. Stern, 93 B.R. 962 (N.D.Ill.1988) (a trustee has no power under § 544 to assert an alter ego claim on behalf of the bankrupt estate’s creditors).
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Pajaro Dunes Rental Agency, Inc. v. Spitters (In Re Pajaro Dunes Rental Agency, Inc.)
(2×)
ozark restaurant
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Robertshaw Controls Co. v. Watts Regulator Co.
it is the authority to control the handling and disposal of hazardous substances that is critical under the statutory scheme
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Fleet Factors Corp.
Co., 810 F.2d 726 , 733 (8th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 848 , 108 5.Ct. 146, 98 L.Ed.2d 102 (1987)).
cited
Cited "see"
Yankton Sioux Tribe v. US ARMY CORPS OF ENGIN.
See Nichols v. Rysavy, 809 F.2d 1317 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 848 , 108 S.Ct. 147 , 98 L.Ed.2d 103 (1987).
discussed
Cited "see"
Turner v. Bolduc (In Re Crowe Rope Industries, LLC)
(2×)
See Mixon v. Anderson (In re Ozark Restaurant Equipment, Co., Inc.), 816 F.2d 1222, 1225 (8th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 848 , 108 S.Ct. 147 , 98 L.Ed.2d 102 (1987).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Union Corp.
(2×)
Florida Power & Light Co. v. Allis Chalmers Corp., 893 F.2d 1313 (11th Cir.1990); see United States v. Northeastern Pharmaceutical & Chemical Co. (“NEPACCO”), 810 F.2d 726, 733 (8th Cir.1986), ce rt. denied, 484 U.S. 848 , 108 S.Ct. 146 , 98 L.Ed.2d 102 (1987).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Chrysler Corp.
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Sherwin-Williams Co. v. City of Hamtramck, 840 F.Supp. 470, 474 (E.D.Mich.1993) (citing U.S. v. Northeastern Pharmaceutical & Chemical Co., 810 F.2d 726 , 746 (8th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 848 , 108 S.Ct. 146 , 98 L.Ed.2d 102 (1987)); City of Philadelphia v. Stepan Chemical Co., 713 F.Supp. 1484, 1486 (E.D.Pa.1989); see also U.S. v. Pretty Products Inc., 780 F.Supp. 1488, 1500 (S.D.Ohio 1991) (“Thus, the statutory language [§ 107(a)(4)(A) ] establishes an exception for costs that are inconsistent with the NC Plan, and ... the party claiming the benefit of the exception, has ‘…
discussed
Cited "see"
Pereira Ex Rel. Trace International Holdings, Inc. v. Cogan
(2×)
See Mixon v. Anderson, 816 F.2d 1222, 1225 (8th Cir.1987), cert. denied 484 U.S. 848 , 108 S.Ct. 147 , 98 L.Ed.2d 102 (1987); Mann v. Michael Industries, Inc., 90 B.R. 981, 985-86 (Bankr.E.D.Mo.1988).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Cross
(2×)
See State v. Neher, 726 S.W.2d 362, 364 (Mo.App.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 848 , 108 S.Ct. 146 , 98 L.Ed.2d 102 (1987). .
discussed
Cited "see"
Bec Co. v. Dep. of Environmental Prot., No. Cv 98 0492627s (May 3, 1999)
See United States v. Northeastern Pharmaceutical Chemical Co., 810 F.2d 726 , 744 (8 th Cir. 1986) ("NEPACCO"), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 848 , 108 S.Ct. 146 , 98 L.Ed.2d 102 (1987); State of New York v. Shore Realty Corp., 759 F.2d 1032 , 1052 (2d Cir. 1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
Louisiana-Pacific Corporation Port of Tacoma v. Asarco Incorporated, Defendant-Third-Party v. William Fjetland B & L Trucking and Construction Co., Inc. Industrial Mineral Products, Inc. Murray Pacific Corporation Portac, Inc. Cascade Timber Company Executive Bark Inc. Wasser & Winters Company Eagle Trucking, Inc., Third-Party Louisiana-Pacific Corporation v. Cascade Timber Company, Third-Party Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellant v. Asarco Incorporated, Defendant-Third-Party William Fjetland B & L Trucking and Construction Co., Inc. Industrial Mineral Products, Inc. Murray Pacific Corporation Portac, Inc., Third-Party Louisiana-Pacific Corporation Port of Tacoma, Portac, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellant v. Asarco Incorporated, Defendant-Third-Party William Fjetland, Third-Party Louisiana-Pacific Corporation v. Murray Pacific Corporation, Third-Party Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellant v. Asarco Incorporated, Defendant-Third-Party William Fjetland B & L Trucking and Construction Co., Inc. Industrial Mineral Products, Inc., Third-Party Louisiana-Pacific Corporation Port of Tacoma, Wasser & Winters Company, Third-Party Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellant v. Asarco Incorporated, Defendant-Third-Party William Fjetland, Third-Party Louisiana-Pacific Corporation, and Port of Tacoma v. Asarco Incorporated, Defendant-Third-Party
See United States v. Northeastern Pharmaceutical & Chemical Co., Inc., 810 F.2d 726, 740 (8th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 848 , 108 S.Ct. 146 , 98 L.Ed.2d 102 (1987); United States v. Price, 523 F.Supp. 1055, 1070-71 (D.N.J.1981), aff'd, 688 F.2d 204 (3d Cir.1982). 78 The provision of the HWMA at issue here is the private cause of action provision, more analogous to 42 U.S.C.
discussed
Cited "see"
Louisiana-Pacific Corp. v. ASARCO Inc.
See United States v. North eastern, Pharmaceutical & Chemical Co., Inc., 810 F.2d 726 , 740 (8th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 848 , 108 S.Ct. 146 , 98 L.Ed.2d 102 (1987); United States v. Price, 523 F.Supp. 1055, 1070-71 (D.N.J.1981), aff'd, 688 F.2d 204 (3d Cir.1982).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States Environmental Protection Agency v. Sequa Corp.
(2×)
See United States v. Northeastern Pharmaceutical, 810 F.2d 726 , 747-748 (8th Cir.1986) (noting that CERCLA’s § 9607(a)(4)(A) does not refer to all reasonable costs, but simply to all costs, and concluding therefore that all costs incurred by the government that are not inconsistent with the NCP are conclusively presumed to be reasonable), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 848 , 108 S.Ct. 146 , 98 L.Ed.2d 102 (1987); United States v. Hardage, 982 F.2d 1436, 1443 (10th Cir.1992) (“[a]s long as the government’s choice of response action is not inconsistent with the NCP, its costs are presumed to be …
discussed
Cited "see"
In the Matter of Bell Petroleum Services, Inc., Debtor. United States Environmental Protection Agency v. Sequa Corporation and Chromalloy American Corp., United States of America v. Bell Petroleum Services, Inc., Regal International, Inc. And John R. Leigh, Sequa Corporation and Chromalloy American Corp.
(2×)
See United States v. Northeastern Pharmaceutical, 810 F.2d 726, 747-748 (8th Cir.1986) (noting that CERCLA's Sec. 9607(a)(4)(A) does not refer to all reasonable costs, but simply to all costs, and concluding therefore that all costs incurred by the government that are not inconsistent with the NCP are conclusively presumed to be reasonable), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 848 , 108 S.Ct. 146 , 98 L.Ed.2d 102 (1987); United States v. Hardage, 982 F.2d 1436, 1443 (10th Cir.1992) ("[a]s long as the government's choice of response action is not inconsistent with the NCP, its costs are presumed to be reaso…
discussed
Cited "see"
Louisiana-Pacific Corporation Port of Tacoma v. Asarco Incorporated, Defendant-Third-Party v. William Fjetland B & L Trucking and Construction Co., Inc. Industrial Mineral Products, Inc. Murray Pacific Corporation Portac, Inc. Cascade Timber Company Executive Bark Inc. Wasser & Winters Company Eagle Trucking, Inc., Third-Party Louisiana-Pacific Corporation v. Cascade Timber Company, Third-Party Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellant v. Asarco Incorporated, Defendant-Third-Party v. William Fjetland B & L Trucking and Construction Co., Inc. Industrial Mineral Products, Inc. Murray Pacific Corporation Portac, Inc., Third-Party Louisiana-Pacific Corporation Port of Tacoma, Portac, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellant v. Asarco Incorporated, Defendant-Third-Party William Fjetland, Third-Party Louisiana-Pacific Corporation v. Murray Pacific Corporation, Third-Party Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellant v. Asarco Incorporated, Defendant-Third-Party William Fjetland, Third-Party Louisiana-Pacific Corporation Port of Tacoma, Wasser & Winters Company, Third-Party Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellant v. Asarco Incorporated, Defendant-Third-Party William Fjetland, Third-Party Louisiana-Pacific Corporation, and Port of Tacoma v. Asarco Incorporated, Defendant-Third-Party
See United States v. Northeastern Pharmaceutical & Chemical Co., Inc., 810 F.2d 726, 740 (8th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 848 , 108 S.Ct. 146 , 98 L.Ed.2d 102 (1987); United States v. Price, 523 F.Supp. 1055, 1070-71 (D.N.J.1981), aff'd, 688 F.2d 204 (3d Cir.1982). 75 The provision of the HWMA at issue here is the private cause of action provision, more analogous to 42 U.S.C.
discussed
Cited "see"
Louisiana-Pacific Corp. v. ASARCO, Inc.
See United States v. Northeastern Pharmaceutical & Chemical Co., Inc., 810 F.2d 726, 740 (8th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 484 US. 848, 108 S.Ct. 146 , 98 L.Ed.2d 102 (1987); United States v. Price, 523 F.Supp. 1055, 1070-71 (D.N.J.1981), aff'd, 688 F.2d 204 (3d Cir.1982).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Alcan Aluminum Corp.
See United States v. Northeastern Pharmaceutical & Chemical Co., Inc., 810 F.2d 726, 746 (8th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 848 , 108 S.Ct. 146 , 98 L.Ed.2d 102 (1987); City of *541 Philadelphia v. Stepan Chemical Co., 713 F.Supp. 1484, 1486 (E.D.Pa.1989).
discussed
Cited "see"
In re GIC Government Securities, Inc.
(2×)
See In re Ozark Restaurant Equipment Co., Inc., 816 F.2d 1222 (8th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 848 , 108 S.Ct. 147 , 98 L.Ed.2d 102 (1987) (Chapter 7 trustee had no standing under § 544 of the Bankruptcy Code to bring cause of action on behalf of corporate debtor’s creditors); Williams v. Calif. 1st Bank, 859 F.2d 664 (9th Cir.1988) (Chapter 7 trustee had no standing to bring suit against bank on behalf of debtor’s creditors, even though creditors assigned to trustee their claims.) See also, Koch Refining v. Farmers Union Cent.
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Julien Co.
(2×)
See, In re Ozark Restaurant Equipment Co., Inc., 816 F.2d 1222 (8th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 848 , 108 S.Ct. 147 , 98 L.Ed.2d 102 (1987), relying on Caplin v. Marine Midland Grace Trust Co., 406 U.S. 416 , 92 S.Ct. 1678 , 32 L.Ed.2d 195 (1972) to hold that § 544 did not give a trustee power to pursue an alter ego action on behalf of the estate’s creditors; see also note 7, infra. 5 .
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Production Plated Plastics, Inc.
See United States v. Northeastern Pharmaceutical & Chemical Co., 810 F.2d 726, 738 (8th Cir.1986), ce rt. denied, 484 U.S. 848 , 108 S.Ct. 146 , 98 L.Ed.2d 102 (1987).
discussed
Cited "see"
Dsq Property Company, Limited v. John Z. Delorean
(2×)
See In re Ozark Restaurant Equipment Co., 816 F.2d 1222 (8th Cir.1987) cert. denied, 484 U.S. 848 , 108 S.Ct. 147 , 98 L.Ed.2d 102 (1987).
discussed
Cited "see"
Aerojet-General Corp. v. Superior Court
(2×)
Co. v. Armco, Inc. (4th Cir. 1987) 822 F.2d 1348 , 1351, cert. den. (1988) 484 U.S. 1008 [ 98 L.Ed.2d 654 , 108 S.Ct. 703 ]; see United States v. Northeastern Pharmaceutical (8th Cir. 1986) 810 F.2d 726, 749 , cert. den. (1987) 484 U.S. 1008 [ 98 L.Ed.2d 102 , 108 S.Ct. 146 ]: “When the government seeks recovery of its response costs under CERCLA ... it is in effect seeking equitable relief in the form of restitution or reimbursement of the costs it expended in order to respond to the health and environmental danger presented by hazardous substances.”) But the equitable nature of CERCLA re…
cited
Cited "see"
State of NY v. City of Johnstown, NY
See United States v. Northeastern Pharmaceutical and Chemical Company, (“NEPACCO”), 810 F.2d 726, 743 (8th Cir.1986), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 146 , 98 L.Ed.2d 102 (1987).
cited
Cited "see"
Sobel v. Yeshiva University
See Berkman v. City of New York, 812 F.2d 52, 59-60 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 108 S.Ct. 146 , 98 L.Ed.2d 102 (1987).
discussed
Cited "see"
Sobel v. Yeshiva University
See Berkman v. City of New York, 812 F.2d 52, 59-60 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 108 S.Ct. 146 , 98 L.Ed.2d 102 (1987). 67 In this case, the reason why the facially neutral guideline system had a "disproportionate" impact on women--indeed, the only reason such a system of across-the-board salary increases could ever have a disparate impact--was because of pre-act discrimination, either in setting initial salaries or, at some point, in increasing them discriminatorily.
discussed
Cited "see"
Marie Ducheneaux v. Secretary of the Interior of the United States, June Ellen Ducheneaux Ledbetter Lillian Lynn Ducheneaux Ria Elaine Ducheneaux Seaboy Orville Rolland Ducheneaux Larry Douglas Ducheneaux Deanna Ducheneaux Mulloy Allen Theodore Ducheneaux Marlene Kay Ducheneaux Superintendent of Cheyenne River Agency and United States Bureau of Indian Affairs, Marie Ducheneaux v. Secretary of the Interior of the United States June Ellen Ducheneaux Ledbetter Lillian Lynn Ducheneaux Ria Elaine Ducheneaux Seaboy Orville Rolland Ducheneaux Larry Douglas Ducheneaux Deanna Ducheneaux Mulloy Allen Theodore Ducheneaux Marlene Kay Ducheneaux, Superintendent of Cheyenne River Agency and United States Bureau of Indian Affairs
See Nichols v. Rysavy, 809 F.2d 1317, 1320-23 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 108 S.Ct. 147 , 98 L.Ed.2d 103 (1987), for a more in-depth discussion of the allotment system 2 The QTA provides, in pertinent part: (a) The United States may be named as a party defendant in a civil action under this section to adjudicate a disputed title to real property in which the United States claims an interest, other than a security interest or water rights.
cited
Cited "see"
Ducheneaux v. Secretary of the Interior
See Nichols v. Rysavy, 809 F.2d 1317, 1320-23 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 108 S.Ct. 147 , 98 L.Ed.2d 103 (1987), for a more in-depth discussion of the allotment system. .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Anderson v. Acme Markets, Inc.
(2×)
Cain v. Hyatt, 101 B.R. 440, 441-42 (E.D.Pa.1989) (citations omitted); see also In re Ozark Restaurant Equipment Co., 816 F.2d 1222, 1225 (8th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 848 , 108 S.Ct. 147 , 98 L.Ed.2d 102 (1987) (stating that “it is clear that causes of action belonging to the debtor at the commencement of the case are included within the definition of property of the estate”) (emphasis in original); Tignor v. Parkinson, 729 F.2d 977, 980 (4th Cir.1984) (holding that the “scope of [section 541] is broad” and “includes all kinds of property, including causes of action”); La…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Franklin County Convention Facilities Authority v. American Premier Underwriters, Inc.
See, e.g., U.S. v. Northeastern Pharmaceutical & Chemical Co., 810 *742 F.2d 726 (8th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 848 , 108 S.Ct. 146 , 98 L.Ed.2d 102 (1987); United States v. Monsanto Co., 858 F.2d 160 (4th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1106 , 109 S.Ct. 3156 , 104 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1989); United States v. Iron Mountain Mines, Inc., 812 F.Supp. 1528 (E.D.Cal.1992); Abbott Laboratories v. Thermo Chem., Inc., 790 F.Supp. 135 (W.D.Mich.1991); United States v. Kramer, 757 F.Supp. 397 (D.N.J.1991); Kelley v. Thomas Solvent Co. (Thomas Solvent III), 714 F.Supp. 1439 (W.D.Mich.1989); O’Neil v…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Rcs Engineered Products Company, Inc., Debtor. Spartan Tube and Steel, Inc. v. Daniel C. Himmelspach Railcar Specialties, Inc.
(2×)
See, e.g., In re Ozark Restaurant Equipment Co., 816 F.2d 1222 , 1225-26 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 848 , 108 S.Ct. 147 , 98 L.Ed.2d 102 (1987) (concluding that subsidiary does not have standing to assert alter ego claim against parent company under Arkansas law); In re Lee Way Holding Co., 105 B.R. 404, 410-12 (Bankr.S.D.Ohio 1989) (concluding that subsidiary has standing to assert alter ego claim against parent company un *226 der Ohio law).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Aztec Minerals Corp. v. Romer
See Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, supra; City of Northglenn v. Grynberg, supra (physical invasion of property did not constitute a taking when it did not result in a legal interference with the physical use, possession, enjoyment, or disposition of the property or translate into an exercise of dominion and control by a governmental entity); see also United States v. Northeastern Pharmaceutical & Chemical Co., 810 F.2d 726 (8th Cir. 1986), cert denied, 484 U.S. 848 , 108 S.Ct. 146 , 98 L.Ed.2d 102 (1987); United States v. Conservation Chemical Co., 619 F.Supp. 162 (W.D.Mo.1985).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Lord v. Babbitt
See West v. Standard Oil Co., 278 U.S. 200, 211-12 , 49 S.Ct. 138, 140-41 , 73 L.Ed. 265 (1929) and Germania Iron Co. v. United States, 165 U.S. 379, 383 , 17 S.Ct. 337, 339 , 41 L.Ed. 754 (1897); see also Nichols v. Rysavy, 610 F.Supp. 1245, 1252 (D.S.D.1985), aff'd on other grounds, 809 F.2d 1317 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 848 , 108 S.Ct. 147 , 98 L.Ed.2d 103 (1987).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
CPC International, Inc. v. Aerojet-General Corp.
See also United States v. Northeastern Pharmaceutical & Chemical Co., 810 F.2d 726, 743 (8th Cir.1986), cer t. denied, 484 U.S. 848 , 108 S.Ct. 146 , 98 L.Ed.2d 102 (1987); Stilloe v. Almy Bros., Inc., 759 F.Supp. 95, 103-04 (N.D.N.Y.1991); United States v. Mottolo, 629 F.Supp. 56, 60 (D.N.H.1984).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Conductron Corp. v. Williams
See, e.g., United States v. Northeastern Pharmaceutical & Chemical Co., 810 F.2d 726, 744 (8th Cir.1986), ce rt. denied, 484 U.S. 848 , 108 S.Ct. 146 , 98 L.Ed.2d 102 (1987); State of New York v. Shore Realty Corp., 759 F.2d 1032, 1052 (2nd Cir.1985); Kelley v. Thomas Solvent Co., 727 F.Supp. 1554, 1561 (W.D.Mich.1989); United States v. Ward, 618 F.Supp. 884, 894 (D.N.C.1985).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Commerce Holding Co., Inc. v. Buckstone
See, e.g., United States v. Northeastern Pharm. & Chem Co., 810 F.2d 726 , 749 (8th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 848 , 108 S.Ct. 146 , 98 L.Ed.2d 102 (1987); United States v. Norther-naire Plating Co., 685 F.Supp. 1410, 1413 (W.D.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Acushnet River & New Bedford Harbor Proceedings
See, e.g., United States v. Northeastern Pharmaceutical & Chem, Co., 810 F.2d 726 , 732-33 (8th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 848 , 108 S.Ct. 146 , 98 L.Ed.2d 102 (1987).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Rockwell International Corp. v. IU International Corp.
See also United States v. Northeastern Pharmaceutical & Chemical Co. (“NEPACCO”), 579 F.Supp. 823, 848 (W.D.Mo.1984) (“The statute literally reads that a person who owns interest in a facility and is actively participating in its management can be held liable for the disposal of hazardous waste.”), aff'd in part and rev’d in part, 810 F.2d 726 (8th Cir.1986), ce rt. denied, — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 146 , 98 L.Ed.2d 102 (1987).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Monsanto Co.
(2×)
See, e.g., Levin Metals Corp. v. Parr-Richmond Terminal Co., 799 F.2d 1312, 1316 (9th Cir.1986); New York v. Shore Realty Corp., 759 F.2d 1032, 1042 (2d Cir.1985); Violet v. Picillo, 648 F.Supp. 1283, 1290 (D.R.I.1986) (and cases cited therein); see also United States v. Northeastern Pharmaceutical & Chemical Co., 810 F.2d 726 , 732 n. 3 (8th Cir.1986), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 146 , 98 L.Ed.2d 102 (1987) (dictum).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States of America South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control v. Monsanto Company Allied Corporation E.M. Industries, Inc. Defendants- American Insurance Association Chemical Manufacturers Association Amici Curiae. And South Carolina Recycling and Disposal, Inc. Columbia Organic Chemical Company Oscar Seidenberg Harvey Hutchinson Eaton Corporation Rad Services, Inc. Aquair Corporation v. G.D. Searle & Company Will Ross, Inc., Third Party United States of America South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control v. Oscar Seidenberg Harvey Hutchinson American Insurance Association Chemical Manufacturers Association, Amici Curiae. And Monsanto Company Allied Corporation Aquair Corporation E.M. Industries, Inc. South Carolina Recycling and Disposal, Inc. Columbia Organic Chemical Company Eaton Corporation Rad Services, Inc. v. G.D. Searle & Company Will Ross, Inc., Third Party United States of America and South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control v. Monsanto Company Allied Corporation E.M. Industries Inc. South Carolina Recycling and Disposal, Inc. Oscar Seidenberg Harvey Hutchinson American Insurance Association Chemical Manufacturers Association, Amici Curiae. And Columbia Organic Chemical Company Eaton Corporation Rad Services, Inc. Aquair Corporation v. G.D. Searle & Company Will Ross, Inc., Third Party
See Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 896 , 104 S.Ct. 1541, 1548 , 79 L.Ed.2d 891 (1984) ("Where ... resolution of a question of federal law turns on a statute and the intention of Congress, we look first to the statutory language and then to the legislative history if the statutory language is unclear.") 11 See, e.g., Levin Metals Corp. v. Parr-Richmond Terminal Co., 799 F.2d 1312, 1316 (9th Cir.1986); New York v. Shore Realty Corp., 759 F.2d 1032, 1042 (2d Cir.1985); Violet v. Picillo, 648 F.Supp. 1283, 1290 (D.R.I.1986) (and cases cited therein); see also United States v. Northeastern Pharmace…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Begier v. Price Waterhouse
(2×)
See, e.g., In re Ozark Restaurant Equipment Co., 816 F.2d 1222, 1228 (8th Cir.) (“no trustee, whether a reorganization trustee as in Caplin [v. Marine Midland Grace Trust Co., 406 U.S. 416 , 92 S.Ct. 1678 , 32 L.Ed.2d 195 (1972)] or a liquidation trustee in the present case, has power under section 544 of the Code to assert general causes of action, such as the alter ego claim, on behalf of the bankrupt estate’s creditors.”) (emphasis in original), cert. denied sub. nom., Jacoway v. Anderson, — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 147 , 98 L.Ed.2d 102 (1987); Baehr v. Touche Ross & Co., 62 B.R. 793 (E.D.…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Jill R. JACOWAY, etc.
v.
Bruce ANDERSON
v.
Bruce ANDERSON
No. 87-71.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 5, 1987.
Cited by 30 opinions | Published
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Denied.