United States v. Dipentino
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
242 F.3d 1090 (2001)
- Written by Sharon Feldman, JD
Facts
Ab-Haz Environmental (Ab-Haz) (defendant) was hired to oversee the removal of asbestos from a Las Vegas hotel prior to demolition. Rafiq Ali (defendant) was the president and sole proprietor of Ab-Haz; Rocco Dipentino (defendant) was the industrial hygienist Ab-Haz hired as on-site inspector for the project. Ab-Haz, Ali, and Dipentino were indicted for violating the Clean Air Act (CAA) because asbestos-containing debris was left to dry on floors instead of being placed, while wet, into leakproof containers as required by the CAA. The trial evidence established that Dipentino was licensed as an asbestos-abatement supervisor and consultant, had certified he had taken courses in environmental regulations, had cowritten the asbestos survey of the hotel, was employed as Ab-Haz’s on-site representative, was present at the site every day, had the authority to stop the contractor’s work for violations, inspected the areas in which asbestos had been abated, and prepared and signed final inspection reports that certified areas were clear of asbestos. Ali and Dipentino were convicted. Dipentino appealed, arguing that he was not an owner or operator within the meaning of the CAA and that the jury could not have reasonably concluded that he could tell just by looking that the debris left to dry on the floor contained asbestos.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Thompson, 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.