No. 22-126
Gould Electronics, Inc. v. Livingston County Road Commission
Relisted (2)
Tags: cercla cost-recovery environmental-liability expert-witness expert-witness-fees lobbying necessary-costs-of-response recovery regulatory-determination remedial-action tce-contamination
Latest Conference:
2022-12-02
(distributed 2 times)
Related Cases:
22-272
(Vide)
Question Presented (from Petition)
1. Are fees paid to an expert witness "necessary costs of response" that can be recovered under Section 107(a) of CERCLA?
2. Are fees paid to a consulting expert to lobby a state regulatory body for a favorable administrative decision "necessary costs of response" that can be recovered under Section 107(a) of CERCLA?
3. More broadly, are costs incurred in "efforts... aimed at exonerating" a party "from liability as opposed to mitigating the spread of contamination" "necessary costs of response" that can be recovered under Section 107(a) of CERCLA?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Are fees paid to an expert witness and consultant for lobbying and testimony 'necessary costs of response' under CERCLA?
Docket Entries
2022-12-05
Petition DENIED.
2022-11-09
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/2/2022.
2022-11-08
Reply of petitioner Gould Electronics, Inc. filed. (Distributed)
2022-09-22
Rescheduled.
2022-09-21
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/7/2022.
2022-09-02
Brief of respondent Livingston County Road Commission in opposition filed.
2022-08-05
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due September 8, 2022)
Attorneys
Gould Electronics, Inc.
Zachary Chad Larsen — Clark Hill PLC, Petitioner
Livingston County Road Commission
Paul Edward Burns — Law Office of Paul E. Burns, Respondent