If any provision of this chapter, or the application of any provision of this chapter to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances and the remainder of this chapter shall not be affected thereby. If an administrative settlement under section 9622 of this title has the effect of limiting any person’s right to obtain contribution from any party to such settlement, and if the effect of such limitation would constitute a taking without just compensation in violation of the fifth amendment of the Constitution of the United States, such person shall not be entitled, under other laws of the United States, to recover compensation from the United States for such taking, but in any such case, such limitation on the right to obtain contribution shall be treated as having no force and effect.
Notes of Decisions
United States v. BP Amoco Oil PLC, 277 F.3d 1012 (8th Cir. 2002).
· cites it 2× “In support of its argument that it had a vested property interest in its contribution claim, Dico cites 42 U.S.C. § 9657 , which provides in part: If an administrative settlement under section 9622 of this title has the effect of limiting any person’s right to obtain…”
United States v. Asarco, Inc., 814 F. Supp. 951 (D. Colo. 1993).
“ASARCO and Res-ASARCO further contend that even if their counterclaims are classified as “contribution” claims, section 308 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9657 , renders that portion of the partial consent decree invalid.”
Gen. Time Corp. v. Bulk Materials, Inc., 826 F. Supp. 471 (M.D. Ga. 1993).
“” 42 U.S.C. § 9657 . Thus, the SARA amendments demonstrate that Congress recognized the danger in permitting an administrative settlement to extinguish claims for contribution and sought to ensure that an administrative settlement comply with procedural due process requirements…”
Kelley v. Wagner, 930 F. Supp. 293 (E.D. Mich. 1996).
“” 42 U.S.C. § 9657 . By submitting the Consent Decree to this court for review, and thus giving Akzo an opportunity to be heard, the requirement for procedural due process has been satisfied, provided that this opportunity to be heard is at “a meaningful time and in a meaningful…”
Waste Mgmt. of Pa., Inc. v. City of York, 910 F. Supp. 1035 (M.D. Penn. 1995).
“Congressional concern for this consequence is reflected in 42 U.S.C. § 9657 , which provides: If an administrative settlement under Section 9622 of this title has the effect of limiting any person’s right to obtain contribution from any party to such settlement, and if the…”
USA v. Dico, Inc. (8th Cir. 2002).
· cites it 2× “4 In support of its argument that it had a vested property interest in its contribution claim, Dico cites 42 U.S.C. § 9657 , which provides in part: If an administrative settlement under section 9622 of this title has the effect of limiting any person’s right to obtain…”
State of RI v. Env. Tech. (1st Cir. 2001).
“42 U.S.C. § 9657 . Ashland's argument in support of this takings claim is so perfunctorily developed that we deem it unworthy of response.”
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.