Ohio v. Kovacs
United States Supreme Court
469 U.S. 274 (1985)
- Written by Eric Miller, JD
Facts
Chem-Dyne Corp. operated a waste-disposal site. The state of Ohio (the state) (plaintiff) sued Chem-Dyne’s chief executive officer, William Kovacs (defendant), for various environmental violations, including pollution of public waters. The suit was settled. A stipulation signed by Kovacs required cleanup of existing pollution, enjoined further pollution, and ordered payment of $75,000. Kovacs failed to comply. The state appointed a receiver to take possession of the site and implement cleanup. Kovacs then filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. Hoping to obtain costs to defray the receiver’s efforts, the state sought to discover Kovacs’s income and assets in a state court action, but this was stayed by the bankruptcy court. The state filed a complaint in the bankruptcy court, seeking a declaration that Kovacs’s cleanup obligation was not a dischargeable debt. The court ruled in favor of Kovacs. The federal district court affirmed, as did the federal court of appeals, which held that Kovacs’s obligation to the state had essentially been reduced to a monetary judgment, which was dischargeable in bankruptcy. The state appealed. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (White, J.)
Concurrence (O’Connor, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 783,000 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.