42 U.S.C. § 107
LIMITATION ON AGENT AND ATTORNEY FEES.
“Notwithstanding any contract, the representative of an individual may not receive, for services rendered in connection with the petition of an individual under this title, more than 5 percent of a payment made under this title on the petition. Any such representative who violates this section shall be fined not more than $50,000.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1983–2026 · leading case: Chatham Steel Corp. v. Brown, 858 F. Supp. 1130 (N.D. Fla. 1994).
Chatham Steel Corp. v. Brown, 858 F. Supp. 1130 (N.D. Fla. 1994). “42 U.S.C.A. § 107 (a)(3). As defined in CERCLA, “person” includes corporations, but the statute does not further define the potential liability of a “corporation.”
United States v. Price, 577 F. Supp. 1103 (D.N.J. 1983). “42 U.S.C. § 107 (a)(1); see Brown v. Georgeoff, 562 F.”
United States v. a & N Cleaners & Launderers, Inc., 788 F. Supp. 1317 (S.D.N.Y. 1992). “See 42 U.S.C. § 107 (b)(3)(a) and (b) (due care and precautions requirement).”
Lutz v. Chromatex, Inc., 725 F. Supp. 258 (M.D. Penn. 1989). “” See 42 U.S.C. § 107 (a). While section 107(a) of CERCLA has been given a broad interpretation based in part on this opening clause, see Pinole Point Properties, Inc.”
United States v. P.R. Indus. Dev. Co., 287 F. Supp. 3d 133 (2017). “) To prevail on its summary judgment motion, the United States must establish that there is no genuine issue of material fact that: (1) the property is a facility pursuant to section 107(b) of CERCLA, (2) PRIDCO falls within one of four categories of covered persons pursuant to…”
United States v. Puerto Rico Indus. Dev. Co., 368 F. Supp. 3d 326 (2019). “42 U.S.C. § 107 ; Acushnet Co. , 191 F.3d at 75 ("By and large, a person who falls within one of the four categories defined in [section 107] is exposed to CERCLA liability.”
In Re Tutu Wells Contamination Litig., 994 F. Supp. 638 (D.V.I. 1998). “'s but deny Gal's and Lazare's motion for summary judgment as to liability under § 107(a)(2), 42 U.S.C. § 107 (a)(2) of CERCLA. Esso's cross-motion for summary judgment under § 107(a)(2), 42 U.”
United States v. Hardage, 761 F. Supp. 1501 (W.D. Okla. 1990). “42 U.S.C. § 107 (a)(3) & (4). Therefore, the United States’ motion for partial summary judgment on liability under CERCLA Section 106 and 107 is GRANTED against Cato, Dal-Worth, Double Eagle, JOC, Rockwell and Stock Yards.”
United States v. Puerto Rico Indus. Dev. Co., 386 F. Supp. 3d 210 (2019). “42 U.S.C. § 107 ; Acushnet Co. v. Mohasco Corp.”
Commander Oil Corp. v. Advance Food Serv. Equip., 991 F.2d 49 (2d Cir. 1993). “The district court, holding that the Asset Purchase Agreement and the Lease must be read together, relied upon the absence of specific language referencing environmental liability in the Asset Purchase Agreement’s indemnification clause and reasoned that to hold that…”
In Re Reading Co., 115 F.3d 1111 (3rd Cir. 1997). “Conrail’s third party complaint against Reading alleged four different causes of action: (1) cost recovery under 42 U.S.C. § 107 (a)(4)(B), (2) contribution under 42 U.”
68th Street Site Work Grp. v. Airgas, Inc. (D. Maryland 2021). “42 U.S.C. § 107 (p)(1)(B). This Court notes that there are certain ambiguities present in the exemption which may require clarification in the future, including from what point the three-year period should run in cases, such as this, where defendants’ notice of potential…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.