AlliedSignal, Inc. v. Amcast International Corp.
United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
177 F. Supp. 2d 713 (2001)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
For years, AlliedSignal, Inc. (plaintiff) disposed of hazardous waste at an Ohio site known as the Goldcamp Disposal Area (GDA). Prior to 1978, Amcast International Corp. (Amcast) (defendant) also dumped waste into the GDA. Amcast deposited between 2 and 3 percent of hazardous substances disposed at the GDA and 28 percent of total waste disposed at the GDA, by volume. After waste disposal at the GDA ceased, AlliedSignal covered the site with a semi-permeable cap. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) became effective in 1980. Pursuant to an agreement with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), AlliedSignal incurred $12 million in clean-up costs through 1994 in connection with the GDA site and anticipated further costs of $18 million. AlliedSignal sued Amcast in district court under CERCLA, seeking to recover a portion of AlliedSignal’s incurred clean-up costs as well as a declaration that Amcast was liable for a portion of future costs. The district court was required to decide whether CERCLA could apply retroactively to impose liability on Amcast and whether CERCLA was constitutional under the Commerce Clause.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Rice, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 783,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.