California Department of Toxic Substances Control v. Alco Pacific, Inc. (2007)
green
· 26 citation events
across 7 courts.
Showing the 9 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 2008 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
200820172026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
Team Enterprises v. Western Investment Real Estate (2011)
A plaintiff can overcome the defense by showing that the substance involved in the transaction “has the charac- teristic of waste at the time it is delivered to another party.” Id. at 936 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
internal quotation marks and citation omitted
A plaintiff can overcome the defense by showing that the substance involved in the transaction “has the characteristic of waste at the time it is delivered to another party.” Id. at 936 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
internal quotation marks and citation omitted
green
United States v. General Electric Co. (2012)
Inc., 508 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir.2007))).
We review de novo, Cal. Dep’t of Toxic Substances Control v. Alco Pac., Inc., 508 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir.2007), and we affirm.
green
United States v. Dico, Inc. (2012)
While Eighth Circuit case law does not offer much guidance in distinguishing useful products from waste, the Ninth Circuit has set forth the following non-exhaustive list of factors to consider in drawing this distinction: “(1) the commercial reality and value of the product in question; (2) a factual inquiry into the actions of the seller in order to determine the intent underlying the transaction; and (3) whether the material in question was a principal product or by-produ…
internal quotation marks and citation omitted
But the fact that fact is not dispositive because “Tilt is sufficient that the substance has the characteristic of waste . . . at the point at which it was delivered to another party.” Catellus Dev’t Corp. v. United States, 34 F.3d 748, 752 (9th Cir. 1994); Cal. Dep’t of Toxic Substances Control v. Alco Pac., Inc., 508 F.3d 930, 935-36 (9th Cir. 2007). 5.
green
Pakootas v. Teck Cominco Metals, Ltd. (2011)
In other words a person may subject to arranger liability “only if the material in question constitutes ‘waste’ rather than a useful product.” A plaintiff can overcome the defense by showing that the substance involved in the transaction “has the characteristic of waste at the time it is delivered to another party.” Id., citing and quoting Cal. Dep’t of Toxic Substances v. Alco Pac., Inc., 508 F.3d 930, 934-36 (9th Cir.2007) (emphasis added).
green
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Renz (2011)
Application of this distinction has been referred to as the ‘useful product doctrine.’ ” Cal. Dep’t of Toxic Substances Control v. Alco Pac., Inc., 508 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir.2007) (“Aleo ”) (citations omitted).
Useful Product Defense Multimatic invokes the useful product defense to shield itself from CERCLA liability. *906 “A person may be held liable as an ‘arranger’ under § 9607(a) (3) only if the material in question constitutes ‘waste’ rather that a ‘useful product.’ ” Cal. Dept. of Toxic Substances v. Alco Pacific, Inc., 508 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir.2007).