Many Superfund practitioners have spent years litigating cases in which a private plaintiff seeks to establish that defendants are liable for costs of responding to a Superfund problem and that they ought to bear some specific equitable share of the total responsibility. Often, the plaintiff has brought the case even though the plaintiff has not paid a very significant portion of the total costs, has not committed to pay a significant portion of the costs, and has not been adjudicated responsible for anything. Why does that private plaintiff get to trigger allocation litigation?

I teach a law school course on the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund), 42 U.S.C. Section 9601-75. Even after more than four decades, I still bear the scars of the hide-the-ball way in which I was taught in law school. For that reason, in addition to assigned readings I prepare notes for each class that I distribute to the students. I have just finished completing the 2024 update for this semester, 205 pages of text collecting most of the appellate authorities under CERCLA that are all listed on a table of cases that has grown to 34 pages itself.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]