• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Environmental law >ATLANTIC RICHFIELD CO. V. GREGORY A. CHRISTIAN ET AL.: CAN STRICT LIABILITY BE TOO STRICT?
【24h】

ATLANTIC RICHFIELD CO. V. GREGORY A. CHRISTIAN ET AL.: CAN STRICT LIABILITY BE TOO STRICT?

机译：大西洋里菲尔德有限公司。V. Gregory A. Christian等：可以严格责任太严格吗？

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

On December 3, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States heard oral argument for Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Gregory Christian, which involved one of the largest and oldest Superfund sites in the U.S.-the Anaconda Smelter. The case chronicles the conflict between one of America's dirtiest industries and the residents who suffered while the Smelter thrived. The underlying case, Gregory Christian v. Atlantic Richfield Co., and the Atlantic Richfield Co. (ARCO) appeal raised issues of first impression for both the Montana state courts and the Supreme Court. This case revealed tensions between the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), a complex federal statute, and areas of authority traditionally left to the states-namely land use and property ownership-resulting in questions of federal supremacy, due process, and statutory construction. This Comment focuses on the issue of whether landowners within a Superfund site are necessarily required to seek permission from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in order to undertake activities on their private properties or face severe consequences under CERCLA. By definition, these landowners classify as "covered persons" under section 107(a) of the statute but whether these individuals would also qualify as "potentially responsible parties" (PRPs) under the statute remained an issue of first impression. The importance of this question should not be underestimated. Whether the property owners, who were expressly absolved of any possible liability by the EPA throughout litigation, would somehow become PRPs under CERCLA after over thirty-five years of the EPA's involvement at the site, and only just before ARCO's filing of its petition for certiorari to the Court, raises serious due process concerns for individuals living within Superfund sites.
机译：2019年12月3日，美国最高法院听取了大西洋里奇菲尔德有限公司的口头辩论。格雷戈里基督徒，涉及美国最大和最古老的超级朋格之一。该案件记载了美国最肮脏的行业和冶炼厂茁壮成长的居民之间的冲突。底层案例，格雷戈里基督教诉大西洋里奇菲尔德有限公司和大西洋里奇菲尔德有限公司（ARCO）呼吁蒙大拿州立法院和最高法院的第一印象。本案例揭示了1980年（CERCLA），复杂的联邦法规和传统管理领域的综合环境响应，赔偿和责任法之间的紧张局势 - 即土地利用和财产所有权 - 导致联邦至高无上的问题，适当的过程，和法定建设。该评论重点介绍了超级义务在环境保护局（EPA）的许可中是否必须在CERCLA下进行私营物业或面临严重后果的活动，以寻求超级义务网站内的土地所有者的问题。根据定义，这些土地所有者根据规约第107（A）条分类为“涵盖人民”，但这些人是否也有资格成为法规下的“潜在的负责人”（PRPS）仍然是第一印象的问题。不应低估这个问题的重要性。在整个诉讼中对EPA有任何可能责任的财产所有者，在美国环保署的三十五年的参与之后，在CERCLA下，在ASCO的申请申请前申请Certiorari之前对于法院，对生活在超级优惠网站内的个人提出严重的正当程序问题。

著录项

  • 来源
    《Environmental law》 |2021年第1期|267-300|共34页
  • 作者

    RACHEL JENNINGS;

  • 作者单位

    Pickett Dummigan McCall LLP;

  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号