Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
United States of America et al v. NCR Corporation et al
Case Number:
1:10-cv-00910
Court:
Nature of Suit:
Judge:
Firms
- Amundsen Davis
- Cabaniss Law
- Cravath Swaine
- DeWitt LLP
- Eimer Stahl
- Foley & Lardner
- Greenberg Traurig
- Halling & Cayo
- Haynsworth Sinkler
- Hunsucker Goodstein
- Johnson & Bell
- Latham & Watkins
- Michael Best & Friedrich LLP
- Nossaman LLP
- Quarles & Brady
- Reinhart Boerner
- Rimon PC
- Shook Hardy
- Sidley Austin
- Simpson & Deardorff
- Stafford Rosenbaum
- von Briesen & Roper
Companies
Sectors & Industries:
-
June 01, 2015
Feds Slam Divisibility Finding In Wisconsin Superfund Row
The U.S. government on Friday asked a Wisconsin federal judge to reconsider his ruling that NCR Corp. can't be held fully liable for part of a $1.5 billion Superfund cleanup, arguing his decision was based on unexamined evidence.
-
May 28, 2015
NCR Divisibility Win Breathes New Life Into CERCLA Defense
A Wisconsin federal judge's recent renewal of NCR Corp.'s divisibility defense in a CERCLA lawsuit has given new shine to a long-abandoned litigation tactic, but while the ruling is good news for defendants, future cases will depend heavily on the facts at the contaminated sites, attorneys say.
-
May 19, 2015
NCR Wins Liability Cap In Wisconsin Superfund Row
A Wisconsin federal judge has handed NCR Corp. a unique win, reversing a prior ruling and finding the company successfully established a divisibility defense that shields it from full liability for part of a $1.5 billion Superfund cleanup.
-
March 26, 2014
Paper Cos., Others To Pay $54M For Wis. River Cleanup Suit
Four paper companies and two municipalities agreed Wednesday to pay the federal government and the state of Wisconsin $54 million in cleanup costs and damages to settle allegations that they polluted a Wisconsin river Superfund site, according to documents filed in Wisconsin federal court.
-
June 11, 2013
Court Won't Back NCR's Bid To Split $1.5B Cleanup Bill
A Wisconsin federal judge on Monday rejected NCR Corp.'s efforts to strong-arm three co-defendants into complying with a $1.5 billion Superfund cleanup plan as ordered by the government, saying district courts are not in the business of policing the enforcement of injunctions.
-
May 01, 2013
$1.5B Cleanup Cost Upheld In Wis. River Pollution Case
A Wisconsin federal judge on Tuesday refused to vacate summary judgment against global paper supplier P.H. Glatfelter Co. and others facing an environmental cleanup plan estimated to cost $1.5 billion, ruling the government was entitled to injunctive relief for the harm resulting from contamination of the Lower Fox River.
-
March 21, 2013
Paper Co. Rips EPA's Backdoor Tactics In $1.5B Cleanup Row
Global paper supplier P.H. Glatfelter Co. and others facing an environmental cleanup plan estimated to cost $1.5 billion on Tuesday demanded a Wisconsin federal court strike three government witness declarations they say were unfairly entered months after the trial's conclusion.
-
February 05, 2013
Flawed Deal Dooms $1.5B Cleanup Plan, Paper Co. Says
Global paper supplier P.H. Glatfelter Co. urged a Wisconsin federal court Friday to reconsider its approval of an environmental cleanup plan estimated to cost $1.5 billion, arguing that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and state regulators failed to properly execute an agreement for selecting a remedy.
-
November 26, 2012
NCR, Others Ordered To Follow Massive PCB Cleanup Plan
A Wisconsin federal judge on Wednesday refused to strike down a "Herculean" environmental cleanup plan that could cost more than $1 billion, finding that technology company NCR Corp. and other defendants must follow the plan established by state and federal officials.
-
October 18, 2012
Additional Discovery Blocked In $1.5B Wis. Superfund Case
A Wisconsin federal judge on Wednesday said he won't require the U.S. and Wisconsin governments to supply more information as part of the discovery process in a $1.5 billion suit over remediation at the Lower Fox River Superfund site, finding that the documents requested were not sufficiently relevant.
- ← Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next →