Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. et al. v. United States, issued by the U.S. Supreme Court on May 4, 2009, makes 2 landmark changes (or at least clarifications) in Superfund jurisprudence:
First, for someone to be liable as an "arranger" under the law, that person must have an "intent" to dispose of the hazardous substance at issue; and,
Second, while Superfund liability is presumed to be joint and several, a Responsible Party can defeat joint and serveral liability if that party can show there is a "reasonable basis" to apportion liability (i.e., to make liability only several).
The Court's Slip Opinion opinion is at the link above.
thanks for sharing
Posted by: doc | July 18, 2009 at 04:32 AM
It is a great article about liability and it is intend to do by every one to keep the world fresh. If the necessary steps are not taken then every conscious people should go for Counterclaim which is a great preference as far as law is concern thinking the above case.
Posted by: sumit | July 03, 2009 at 03:15 AM
this one is great..very well written.keep sharing. thanks.
Posted by: DUI | July 02, 2009 at 12:28 AM
Good article. Any word on how liable they are for any global warming?
http://tinyurl.com/lzm6al
Posted by: Mark | June 09, 2009 at 12:40 PM
its wonderfully written. i like it.i appreciate it.its useful. thanks for sharing.
Posted by: Best divorce lawyers | June 04, 2009 at 11:35 PM