42 U.S.C. § 113
Repealed. June 25, 1948, ch. 646, § 39, 62 Stat. 992, eff. Sept. 1, 1948
[repealed]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1990–2023 · leading case: Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 596 F.3d 112 (2d Cir. 2010).
Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 596 F.3d 112 (2d Cir. 2010). “Under § 113(f)(3)(B), a “person who has resolved its liability to the United States or a state for some or all of a response action or for some or all of the costs of such action in an administrative or judicially approved settlement may seek contribution from any person who is…”
United States v. Compaction Sys. Corp., 88 F. Supp. 2d 339 (D.N.J. 2000). “[42U.S.C. § 113(f)]. 6 . The House Report set forth in pertinent part that: [t]he section should encourage private party settlements and cleanups.”
Chitayat v. Vanderbilt Assocs., 702 F. Supp. 2d 69 (E.D.N.Y 2010). “See 42 U.S.C. § 113 (g)(2) & (3). With respect to §113 contribution claims, the statute states: No action for contribution for any response costs or damages may be commenced more than 3 years after— (A) the date of judgment in any action under this chapter for recovery of such…”
Pfohl Bros. Landfill Site Steering Comm. v. Allied Waste Sys., Inc., 255 F. Supp. 2d 134 (W.D.N.Y. 2003). “See 42 U.S.C. § 113 (f). See Bedford Affiliates, supra, at 423-25.”
United States v. Rohm & Haas Co., 939 F. Supp. 1142 (D.N.J. 1996). “” 42 U.S.C.A. § 113 (f) (West 1995). Furthermore, in doing so, a court “may allocate response costs among liable parties using such equitable factors as the court deems are appropriate.”
Pub. Citizen v. Fed. Motor Carrier Saf. Admin., 374 F.3d 1209 (D.C. Cir. 2004). “42 U.S.C. § 113 . Before Congress created the FMCSA, the Federal Highway Administration (“FHA”) was responsible for such rules.”
United States v. Kramer, 913 F. Supp. 848 (D.N.J. 1995). “§§ 9604 (a) and 122, and to sue for contribution from non-participating responsible persons pursuant to section 113(f) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 113 (f). If they decide not to do so they cannot later complain that the individual costs of the EPA’s response actions were not the most…”
Reardon v. United States, 731 F. Supp. 558 (D. Mass. 1990). “” 42 U.S.C. § 113 (b). The jurisdictional grant in section 113(b), however, is expressly subject to the provisions of section 113(a) and 113(h) of CERCLA.”
United States v. Sandhu, 462 F. Supp. 2d 663 (E.D. Pa. 2006). “42 U.S.C. § 113 . On April 28, 2003, the hour requirements for CMV drivers were changed for property-carrying vehicles.”
New York v. Solvent Chem. Co., 214 F.R.D. 106 (W.D.N.Y. 2003). “In resolving contribution claims under this section, “the court may allocate response costs among lia *109 ble parties using such equitable factors as the court determines are appropriate.”
Gov't of Guam v. United States, 341 F. Supp. 3d 74 (D.C. Cir. 2018). “Guam responds that the 2004 Consent Decree did not "resolve its liability" within the meaning of section 113(f)(3)(B), nor does that agreement qualify as a CERCLA "settlement," and thus, Guam maintains that it is not precluded from bringing a cost-recovery claim under section…”
United States v. Colorado & E. R.R., 50 F.3d 1530 (10th Cir. 1995). “See 42 U.S.C. § 113 (f)(2), infra. Thus, a PRP who has entered into a judicially approved settlement with the United States may not be held hable for contribution to another PRP if the contribution claim concerns matters addressed in the settlement.”
— 42 U.S.C. § 113(f) — 1 case
United States v. Compaction Sys. Corp., 88 F. Supp. 2d 339 (D.N.J. 2000). “[42U.S.C. § 113(f)]. 6 . The House Report set forth in pertinent part that: [t]he section should encourage private party settlements and cleanups.”
— 42 U.S.C. § 113(g)(2)(B) — 1 case
United States v. Rohm & Haas Co., 939 F. Supp. 1142 (D.N.J. 1996). “” 42 U.S.C.A. § 113 (f) (West 1995). Furthermore, in doing so, a court “may allocate response costs among liable parties using such equitable factors as the court deems are appropriate.”
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.