Raytheon Aircraft Co. v. US, No. 08-3237

In a cost recovery action under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, judgment for plaintiff U.S. is affirmed where: 1) defendant was unable to establish that the Army used the chemical at issue at the contested site; 2) the court reasonably chose not to credit the testimony of veterans who claimed the chemical was used by the Army; and 3) defendant failed to rebut the presumption that the EPA's efforts to list the site on the National Priorities List were consistent with a national contingency plan.

Read Raytheon Aircraft Co. v. US, No. 08-3237

Appellate Information

Filed December 29, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Murphy

Counsel

For Appellant:

Robert M. Jackson, Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn LLP, Detroit, MI

Stephen J. Torline and Derek T. Teeter, Husch Blackwell Sanders LLP, Kansas City, MO

For Appellee:

Brian C. Toth, Scott Pemberton, Catherine R. Sanders, Environment & Natural Resources Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC