Seattle University School of Law Digital Commons
metadata only
Denying Private Attorney Fee Recovery Under CERCLA: Bad Law and Bad Policy
This Article argues that the Ninth Circuit decision in Stanton Road was wrong. Section II of this Article describes the majority and dissenting opinions in Stanton Road. Section III argues that the majority misread Supreme Court precedent, leading it to adopt an excessively formalistic approach to
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- 42 U.S.C. § 4053 — Adjustment and payment of claims; judicial review; limitations; jurisdiction#592366
- 28 U.S.C. § 4105 — Attorneys’ fees#556684
- 2 U.S.C. § 1403 — Mediation#558119
- Veronica Serpas-Joya v. Attorney General United States of America#410610
- 19 U.S.C. § 3104 — Negotiations in response to investigation#574796
Record · ID 1020111
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive