Jensen v. California Department of Health Services
United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit
127 B.R. 27 (1991)
- Written by Eric Miller, JD
Facts
Robert and Rosemary Jensen (plaintiffs) owned Jensen Lumber Company (JLC). On January 25, 1984, the California Regional Water Quality Board (the board) inspected the site that the Jensens leased for their JLC operations. On February 2, the board sent the Jensens a letter informing them that they had illegally released hazardous waste. On February 13, the Jensens filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 7 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. No mention of hazardous-waste cleanup was made at this time. In March, the California Department of Health Services (DHS) (defendant)—a state environmental regulatory agency separate from the board—became involved in plans to remove the hazardous waste. The Jensens received a discharge in July. Later, the DHS took steps under state and federal Superfund statutes to seek recovery for remediation of the contaminated site. In 1989 the Jensens initiated an adversary proceeding, seeking a determination that any claim for cleanup costs had been discharged in 1984. The bankruptcy court ruled in favor of DHS, finding that the claim arose with the right to payment, which in turn arose under Superfund liability. The result, according to the court, was that DHS’s claim was postpetition and therefore not dischargeable. The Jensens appealed. The United States Bankruptcy Court Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Ashland, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 797,000 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.