New York v. Schenectady Chemicals, Inc.
New York Supreme Court
459 N.Y.S.2d 971 (1983)
- Written by Eric Miller, JD
Facts
Schenectady Chemicals, Inc. (Schenectady) (defendant) was a manufacturer of chemical products that generated large amounts of waste. Schenectady engaged the services of Dewey Loeffel, an independent contractor who maintained a waste-disposal site, from the 1950s through the mid-1960s. Loeffel disposed of Schenectady’s waste materials by dumping them directly into a lagoon or, in some cases, buying them. Loeffel also performed these services for the General Electric Company (GE) (defendant) and the Bendix Corporation (defendant). Several years after the dumping ended, the State of New York (plaintiff) initiated legal action against Schenectady, GE, and Bendix, charging that waste from Loeffel’s site was being carried beyond the site, resulting in air, surface, and groundwater pollution of the surrounding area. The latter allegation included pollution of a source of drinking water for thousands of people. Of the three companies, only Schenectady refused to pay its share of the cleanup costs. Schenectady moved for dismissal without trial. More specifically, Schenectady challenged the state’s claims of public nuisance, arguing that the three-year statute of limitations on public-nuisance actions had expired and that Loeffel, not Schenectady, was the liable wrongdoer.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hughes, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 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.
