From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Doe v. Southeastern Pennsylvania

U.S.
Oct 7, 1996
519 U.S. 808 (1996)

Summary

holding that direct arranger liability under CERCLA may be imposed against corporate officer or director if, under totality of circumstances, he or she had authority to control and did in fact exercise actual or substantial control, directly or indirectly, over arrangement for disposal, or for off-site disposal, of hazardous substances

Summary of this case from Freeport-McMoran Resource Partners v. B-B Paint

Opinion

No. 95-1742.

October 7, 1996, October TERM, 1996.


C.A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 72 F. 3d 1133.


Summaries of

Doe v. Southeastern Pennsylvania

U.S.
Oct 7, 1996
519 U.S. 808 (1996)

holding that direct arranger liability under CERCLA may be imposed against corporate officer or director if, under totality of circumstances, he or she had authority to control and did in fact exercise actual or substantial control, directly or indirectly, over arrangement for disposal, or for off-site disposal, of hazardous substances

Summary of this case from Freeport-McMoran Resource Partners v. B-B Paint

stating that acrimony is cause to appoint a trustee "when the inherent conflicts extend beyond the healthy conflicts that always exist between debtor and creditor or ... when the parties ‘begin working at cross-purposes’ "

Summary of this case from In re Thomas
Case details for

Doe v. Southeastern Pennsylvania

Case Details

Full title:DOE v. SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY ET AL

Court:U.S.

Date published: Oct 7, 1996

Citations

519 U.S. 808 (1996)
117 S. Ct. 51

Citing Cases

Walker v. Schwalbe

DISCUSSION [20] QUALIFIED IMMUNITY [21] A. Standard of Review A district court's ruling that an official's…

Vista Community Services v. Dean

We review de novo a district court's ruling that a government official's conduct violated clearly established…