• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
18 results

MRP Properties Company, LLC, et al., Petitioners v. United States

Docket 23-687, Supreme Court of the United States (Dec. 27, 2023)
Petitioner MRP Properties Company, LLC, et al.
Respondent United States
Other American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers and Western States Petroleum Association
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

Reply of petitioners MRP Properties - Proof of Service

Document MRP Properties Company, LLC, et al., Petitioners v. United States, 23-687, Reply of petitioners MRP Properties, Proof of Service (U.S. May. 16, 2024)
I, Simone Cintron, being duly sworn according to law and being over the age of 18, upon my oath depose and say that:
That on the 16th day of May, 2024, I served the within Reply Brief for the Petitioner in the above-captioned matter upon: Elizabeth Prelogar Solicitor General United States Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
That on the same date as above, forty copies of the within Reply Brief for the Petitioner through the Overnight Next Day Federal Express, postage prepaid.
Notary Public State of New York No. 01BR6004935 Qualified in Richmond County Commission Expires March 30, 2026 #329512
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Reply of petitioners MRP Properties - Certificate of Word Count

Document MRP Properties Company, LLC, et al., Petitioners v. United States, 23-687, Reply of petitioners MRP Properties, Certificate of Word Count (U.S. May. 16, 2024)
As required by Supreme Court Rule 33.1(h), I certify that the document contains 2,997 words, excluding the parts of the document that are exempted by Supreme Court Rule 33.1(d).
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on this 16th day of May, 2024.
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 16th day of May, 2024.
Notary Public State of New York No. 01BR6004935 Qualified in Richmond County Commission Expires March 30, 2026 #329512
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Reply of petitioners MRP Properties - Main Document

Document MRP Properties Company, LLC, et al., Petitioners v. United States, 23-687, Reply of petitioners MRP Properties, Main Document (U.S. May. 16, 2024)
The government nonetheless con- tends that the OPA (the statute at issue in Nature’s Way) and CERCLA “require distinct legal inquiries.” Opp. 20.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Brief of respondent United States in - Proof of Service

Document MRP Properties Company, LLC, et al., Petitioners v. United States, 23-687, Brief of respondent United States in, Proof of Service (U.S. May. 2, 2024)
No. 23-687 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES MRP PROPERTIES COMPANY, LLC, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Brief of respondent United States in - Main Document

Document MRP Properties Company, LLC, et al., Petitioners v. United States, 23-687, Brief of respondent United States in, Main Document (U.S. May. 2, 2024)
In light of the latter definition’s textual “circularity,” United States v. Bestfoods, 524 U.S. 51, 56 (1998), this Court has concluded, based on dictionary definitions re- flecting the ordinary meaning of the verb “ ‘operate,’ ” that “a facility’s ‘operator’ ” is one “who directs the workings of, manages, or conducts the affairs of a facil- ity.” Id. at 66 (citations omitted).
The court noted that CERCLA’s imposition of liability on any person who “operated” a facility “at the time of disposal of [the] hazardous substance,” 42 U.S.C. 9607(a)(2), ensures that “those actually ‘respon- sible for any damage, environmental harm, or injury from chemical poisons may be tagged with the cost of their actions.’ ” Bestfoods, 524 U.S. at 55-56 (citation and brackets omitted).
In support of their argument that the government was liable as a CERCLA “operator,” petitioners also re- lied on the government’s regulation of a refinery’s in- puts (like the supply of crude oil) and on wartime “ra- tion[ing] [of ] steel and other necessary capital goods” that led to refineries’ “deferred maintenance and in- creases in leakage.” Pet. App. 10a-11a.
The Court observed that Section 9607(a)(2)’s imposition of liability on any person who “operated” a facility “at the time of disposal of [the] hazardous substance,” 42 U.S.C. 9607(a)(2); see 42 U.S.C. 6903(3), 9601(29), ensures that “those actually ‘responsible for any damage, environmental harm, or injury from chemical poisons may be tagged with the cost of their actions.’ ” Bestfoods, 524 U.S. at 55-56 (ci- tation and brackets omitted).
And although the Fifth Circuit borrowed from Bestfoods’ dictionary-based textual analysis when interpreting the ordinary mean- ing of the word “operator,” see Nature’s Way Marine, 904 F.3d at 420, the court did not adopt Bestfoods’ CERCLA-specific holding that an “operator” under Section 9607(a)(2) “must manage, direct, or conduct op- erations specifically related to pollution, that is, opera- tions having to do with the leakage or disposal of haz- ardous waste, or decisions about compliance with envi- ronmental regulations.” Bestfoods, 524 U.S. at 66-67.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Motion to extend the time to file a - Main Document

Document MRP Properties Company, LLC, et al., Petitioners v. United States, 23-687, Motion to extend the time to file a, Main Document (U.S. Mar. 29, 2024)
U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Solicitor General
Honorable Scott S. Harris Clerk Supreme Court of the United States Washington, D.C. 20543
This extension is necessary because the attorneys with principal responsibility for final preparation of the government’s response have been heavily engaged with the press of other matters before the Court.
cc: Counsel for petitioners does not object to this further extension of time.
Sincerely, Elizabeth B. Prelogar Solicitor General See Attached Service List
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Motion to extend the time to file a - Main Document

Document MRP Properties Company, LLC, et al., Petitioners v. United States, 23-687, Motion to extend the time to file a, Main Document (U.S. Feb. 23, 2024)
U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Solicitor General
Honorable Scott S. Harris Clerk Supreme Court of the United States Washington, D.C. 20543
This extension is necessary because the attorneys with principal responsibility for final preparation of the government’s response have been heavily engaged with the press of other matters before the Court.
cc: Counsel for petitioners does not object to this further extension of time.
Sincerely, Elizabeth B. Prelogar Solicitor General See Attached Service List
cite Cite Document
Analyze
1 2 >>