In filing a lawsuit, plaintiffs might seek an injunction against a certain action, kansas city chiefs go chiefs full printing ugly sweater say, to stop an industry from dumping toxic waste into a river, or stop work on a public project
kansas city chiefs go chiefs full printing ugly sweater
By 1996, the cleanup costs for Aviall amounted to $5 million, and the company believed they could go higher. In 1997, it filed a federal lawsuit against Cooper, seeking the recovery of cleanup costs. kansas city chiefs go chiefs full printing ugly sweater Aviall alleged that under CERCLA, Cooper was a “potentially responsible person” and therefore liable for much of the cleanup effort. The federal district court dismissed Aviall’s lawsuit, ruling that CERCLA’s §113 relief was unavailable because Aviall had not been sued under CERCLA to clean up the sites. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed this ruling, finding that §113 allows a PRP to obtain contribution from other PRPs whether or not the PRP had been sued under CERCLA.
The appeals court pointed to a clause in the statute that said that nothing in the section should diminish any party’s right to bring a contribution action in the absence of a CERCLA lawsuit. Boomer v. Atlantic Cement Co. is a classic common law nuisance case. The neighbors of a large cement plant claimed they had incurred property damage from dirt, smoke and vibrations. They sued for compensatory damages and to enjoin or stop the polluting activities, which would have meant shutting down the plant, a mainstay of the local economy. The New York court rejected a long-standing practice and denied the injunction. Further, in an unusual move, the court ordered the company to pay the plaintiffs for present and future economic loss to their properties. A dissenting judge said the rule was a virtual license for the company to continue the nuisance so long as it paid for it.