United States Leading Case uncategorised

Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co v United States

556 U.S. 599 (2009)

JurisdictionUnited States

CourtUS Supreme Court

Year2009

StatusBinding authority

Summary

Under CERCLA, arranger liability requires proof of intent to dispose of hazardous substances; mere knowledge that spills may occur is insufficient.

Key Principle

CERCLA; arranger liability requires intent to dispose; mere knowledge of spills insufficient

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 Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co v United States and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Burlington Northern & Santa Fe...