← All Authorities
United States separation of powersgrounds illegality

Atlantic Richfield Co v Christian

590 U.S. 461 (2020)
JurisdictionUnited States
CourtUS Supreme Court
Year2020
StatusBinding authority

Summary

CERCLA §113(f)(1) does not divest state courts of jurisdiction over state-law restoration claims allowing landowners to seek cleanup beyond the EPA-approved remedy.

Key Principle

CERCLA §113(f)(1) does not strip state courts of jurisdiction over state-law restoration claims; landowners can pursue additional cleanup beyond EPA remedy

Area of Law

environmental

Related Cases

Sharma v Minister for the Environment [2022] FCAFC 35

Full Federal Court overturned trial judge and held no novel duty of care is owed by the Environment Minister to Australian children when approving fossil fuel projects under climate change concerns.

Bushfire Survivors for Climate Action Inc v Environment Protection Authority [2021] NSWLEC 92

NSW Land and Environment Court held the EPA had a statutory duty under the POEO Act to develop environmental protection policies addressing climate change, enforceable by judicial review.

Gloucester Resources Ltd v Minister for Planning (Rocky Hill Mine) [2019] NSWLEC 7

First Australian court decision refusing mine approval on climate change grounds, holding that a project's greenhouse gas contributions are a material consideration in planning decisions.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of Atlantic Richfield Co v Christian and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Atlantic Richfield Co v Christ...