Arizona v. City of Tucson

761 F.3d 1005 (2014)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Arizona v. City of Tucson

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
761 F.3d 1005 (2014)

  • Written by Tammy Boggs, JD

Facts

Pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and its state counterpart, the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (the state) (plaintiff) investigated the hazardous-waste clean-up costs for a landfill site in Tucson, Arizona. Several parties that were potentially responsible for the site’s contamination approached the state, seeking to enter into early settlement agreements. The state agreed to settle with 22 parties (defendants). The settling parties agreed to pay specified amounts in exchange for a full release of liability and any obligation to make further contributions. The state initiated an action against the settling parties to obtain judicial approval of the settlement agreements and entry of associated consent decrees. The state’s motion to the court indicated that the total estimated cost of remediation was $75 million. The state did not provide evidentiary support for the figure. Further, the state calculated the liability of the settling parties to range between 0.01 and 0.2 percent without corresponding evidence of the settling parties’ comparative fault. A group of nonsettling parties intervened, objecting to entry of the proposed consent decrees. The district court approved the settlements, relying on the state’s representation that the terms of the agreements were fair, reasonable, and consistent with CERCLA’s objectives. The court deferred to the state’s judgment that entry of the proposed consent decrees would best serve the public interest. The nonsettling parties appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Smith, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 736,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 736,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 736,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership