New York v. National Services Industries, Inc.

460 F.3d 201 (2006)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

New York v. National Services Industries, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
460 F.3d 201 (2006)

Facts

Serv-All Uniform Rental Corporation (Serv-All) operated a uniform-rental service that also dry-cleaned the uniforms. In 1978, Serv-All had hazardous materials used in its dry-cleaning service disposed of at a landfill. As a result of this disposal, Serv-All was potentially responsible for environmental clean-up costs at the landfill pursuant to a federal environmental statute. In October 1988, Serv-All sold its uniform business, its name, and nearly all of its other assets to Initial Service Investments (Initial). Serv-All then changed its name and, ultimately, dissolved on January 27, 1989. Following the sale, except for Serv-All’s dry-cleaning practice (which Initial did not conduct or pursue), Initial operated the purchased assets and business substantially the same as Serv-All had historically operated, including using Serv-All’s name and Serv-All’s former employees. In 1995, Initial merged into National Service Industries, Inc. (NSI) (defendant). The landfill had been listed as a contaminated site on the National Priority List since 1987 and, by 2002, the State of New York (plaintiff) had spent over $12 million in environmental clean-up costs at the site of the landfill. The state brought an action against NSI to recover the costs of the clean-up, alleging that the purchase of the original Serv-All’s assets was a de facto merger and that NSI had successor liability for the original Serv-All’s acts. The district court found that there was no de facto merger because there was no continuity of ownership between NSI and the original Serv-All entity. The state appealed the district court’s ruling, asserting that state law—not a national rule based on traditional common law—applied and that it was unsettled as to whether a lack of continuity of ownership was a required element of de facto ownership.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Sotomayor, 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 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  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.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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 832,000 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
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 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