Journal Contents

Student Publications Homepage

ARTICLE CONTENTS

[Pages 69-110]
TOP OF ARTICLE

Introduction
I.  Statutory Structure of CERCLA’s Liability Scheme
    A.  Potentially Responsible Parties
    B.  Liability and Defenses Thereto
    C.  Interpretive Problems and Ramifications Posed by Defining “Disposal”
II.  Formation of the Passive Disposal Interpretation
    A.  Early RCRA Decisions Endorse the Passive Interpretation
        1.  United States v. Price
        2.  United States v. Waste Industries
    B.  CERCLA Decisions Imposing Liability for Passive Migration
        1.  Stanley Works v. Snydergeneral Corporation
        2.  New York v. Shore Realty Corp.
    C.  Nurad, Inc. v. William E. Hooper & Sons Co.
III.  Formation of the Active Disposal Majority
    A.  United States v. Petersen Sand & Gravel, Inc.
    B.  United States v. CDMG Realty Co.
        1.  Language of the Statute
        2.  Structure of the Innocent Owner Defense
        3.  Purposes of the Statute
    C.  Aftermath of CDMG Realty
IV.  Carson Harbor Village, Ltd. v. Unocal Corp.
    A.  Factual and Procedural Background
B.  The Ninth Circuit Endorses the Passive Interpretation
    C.  Response to CDMG Realty Co.
V.  Analysis
    A.  Language
    B.  Defining “Release” as Distinct from “Disposal”
    C.  Time of Disposal
    D.  Innocent Owner Defense
    E.  Remedial Purposes of the Statute
Conclusion