1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.3d
  4. 761 F.3d
  5. 761 F.3d 1005 (2014)
 

ARIZONA v. CITY OF TUCSON

No. 12-15691.

761 F.3d 1005 (2014)

State of ARIZONA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CITY OF TUCSON, Intervenor-Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ashton Company Incorporated Contractors and Engineers; Baldor Electric Company; Don Mackey Oldsmobile Cadillac, Inc.; Dunn-Edwards Corporation; Durodyne, Inc.; Fersha Corporation; Fluor Corporation; General Dynamics Corporation; Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company; Lockheed Martin Corporation; Holmes Tuttle Ford, Inc.; Industrial Pipe Fittings, LLC; Tucson Foundry & Manufacturing Incorporated; Rowe Enterprises Incorporated; Pima County Community College District; Rollings Corporation; Textron Incorporated; ABB Incorporated; Combustion Engineering Incorporated; Texas Instruments, Inc.; Tucson Dodge Incorporated; Warner Propeller & Governor Company, LLC; Fluor Enterprises, Inc., Defendants-Appellees, v. Raytheon Company; Pima County, Intervenors-Appellants, University of Arizona; Arizona Board of Regents; Tomkins Industries, Inc.; Tucson Airport Authority; Tucson Electric Power Company, Intervenor-Defendants-Appellants.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Filed August 1, 2014.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Jennifer B. Anderson (argued), Kevin D. Neal , Lori L. Voepel , and Erin E. Richardson , Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, PLC, Phoenix, AZ; Harlan C. Agnew , Pima County Attorney's Office, Tucson, AZ; Cynthia T. Kuhn , Kuhn Young Law Firm, PLLC, Tucson, AZ; Charles A. Bischoff , Jorden Bischoff & Hiser, PLC, Scottsdale, AZ; James J. Dragna and Denise G. Fellers , Bingham & McCutchen, Los Angeles, CA; James Francis Murphy , Adler Murphy & McQuillen LLP, Chicago, IL; and Robert M. Jackson , Honigman Miller Schwartz & Cohn, Detroit, MI, for Intervenor-Defendants-Appellants.

Jeffrey Cantrell (argued), Tom Horne , Tamara Huddleston , and Anthony Young , Office of the Arizona Attorney General, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.

Christopher D. Thomas (argued) and Matthew L. Rojas , Squire Sanders, LLP, Phoenix, AZ; Patrick J. Paul and Martha E. Gibbs , Snell & Wilmer LLP, Phoenix, AZ; Eric Lukingbeal , Robinson & Cole LLP, Hartford, CT; Edward A. Cohen , Thompson Coburn LLP, St. Louis, MS; Carla A. Consoli and Jon Weiss , Lewis and Roca LLP, Phoenix, AZ; Richard M. Yetwin , Michael R. Urman , John C. Richardson , and John Charles Emerson Barrett , DeConcini McDonald Yetwin & Lacey, P.C., Tucson, AZ; Randolph G. Muhlestein , Musick Peeler & Garrett, LLP, Los Angeles, CA; John F. Cermak, Jr. and Sonja A. Inglin , Baker & Hostetler LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Phillip F. Fargotstein and Theresa Dwyer-Federhar , Fennemore Craig PC, Phoenix, AZ; Joel L. Herz , Law Offices of Joel L. Herz, Tucson, AZ; Charles S. Price and Mariscal Weeks , Mclntyre & Friedlander, PA, Phoenix, AZ; Mary T. Holohan , Fluor Enterprises, Inc., Irving, TX; Howard T. Roberts, Jr. , Goering, Roberts, Rubin, Brogna, Enos & Treadwell-Rubin, P.C. Tucson. AZ; Alan N. Bick and Heather D. Hearne , Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Irvine, CA; Jeffrey G. Baxter and Sean E. Brearcliffe , Rusing Lopez & Lizardi, PLLC, Tucson, AZ; Dennis A. Rosen , Law Offices of Dennis A. Rosen, Tucson, AZ; Mitchell J. Klein , Polsinell Shughart, PC, Phoenix, AZ; Jeremy A. Lite , Quarles & Brady LLP, Tucson, AZ; Stephen D. Hoffman , Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees.

Opinion by Judge MILAN D. SMITH, Jr.; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge CALLAHAN.

OPINION

M. SMITH, Circuit Judge:

In this appeal, we address a district court's obligation to scrutinize the terms of a proposed consent decree under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. § 9601-75 (CERCLA). In so doing, we reaffirm that a district court has an "obligation to independently scrutinize the terms of [such agreements]," by, inter alia, comparing "the proportion of total projected costs...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases