The Supreme Court will decide later this year whether to review an appellate court decision on the divisibility of harm under the Superfund law that petitioners argue has national significance and conflicts with the high court's 2009 ruling that allowed parties subject to the cleanup law's joint-and-several liability scheme to apportion responsibility for contamination in some cases. PCS Nitrogen July 29 filed a petition for writ of certiorari in PCS Nitrogen, Inc. v. Ashley Ⅱ of Charleston, LLC, et al. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit last April affirmed a lower court decision on divisibility under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation & Liability Act (CERCLA) as well as ruled on a much-watched bona fide prospective purchaser (BFPP) issue. Parties are not seeking high court review of the BFPP decision. The petitioners argue the high court should decide whether the 4th Circuit's refusal to divide harm under CERCLA among the parties is contrary to the high court's ruling in Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railroad v. United States. The appellate court rejected divisibility, "despite overwhelming evidence in the record demonstrating a reasonable basis for dividing the harm and thus apportioning liability."
展开▼
机译：最高法院将在今年晚些时候决定是否对上诉法院根据超级基金法对损害的可分割性作出的裁决进行复审，该裁决认为请愿人认为这对国家具有重大意义，并且与高等法院2009年的裁决相冲突，该裁决允许当事方接受清理法的联合起诉。在某些情况下，对污染承担责任的几个责任计划。 7月29日，PCS Nitrogen向PCS Nitrogen，Inc.诉Charleston，LLC等人的AshleyⅡ提起了证明书请求。去年4月，美国第四巡回上诉法院根据《综合环境响应，赔偿与责任法》（CERCLA）确认了关于可分割性的下级法院裁决，并裁定了备受关注的真诚的潜在购买者（BFPP）问题。各方不要求对BFPP决定进行高等法院审查。请愿人认为，高等法院应决定第四巡回法院拒绝在CERCLA下将损害分给当事方，这是否违反了高等法院在Burlington Northern和Santa Fe Railroad诉美国案中的裁决。上诉法院驳回了可分割性，“尽管记录中有压倒性的证据证明了合理的基础来划分损害并因此分担了责任”。
展开▼
