CTS Corp. v. Waldburger
United States Supreme Court
573 U.S. 1 (2014)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
CTS Corp. (defendant) operated an electronics plant in North Carolina between 1959 and 1985. As part of the electronics-manufacturing process, CTS stored hazardous substances on the property. In 1987, CTS sold the property. In 2011, the current property owner and adjacent landowners (collectively, the owners) (plaintiffs) sued CTS in North Carolina district court alleging a state-law nuisance action that sought compensation for damages. The owners claimed that they only learned in 2009 from the Environmental Protection Agency that their well water had been contaminated by CTS many years earlier. North Carolina’s applicable statute of repose was 10 years. Citing the statute, CTS filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that its last act relating to the property was in 1987, 24 years before the suit’s filing. The district court granted CTS’s motion to dismiss. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit reversed, ruling that the statute of repose was preempted by § 9658 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), which imposes a discovery rule. If North Carolina’s statute of repose was preempted, the owners’ claim could proceed against CTS. The Supreme Court agreed to review the matter.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kennedy, J.)
Concurrence (Scalia, J.)
Dissent (Ginsburg, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 781,000 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.