# Furrer v. Brown

> Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · August 15, 1995 · 62 F.3d 1092

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6935755

## Case

- **Full name:** J. Richard FURRER Margaret L. Furrer v. Donald F. BROWN Dorothy J. Brown Louis W. Fagas Geraldine J. Fagas Shell Oil Company, Unknown Does, 1-100, State of Missouri Bi-State Development Agency United States of America, Amicus Curiae
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
- **Decided:** August 15, 1995
- **Citations:** 62 F.3d 1092; 1995 WL 478274
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Bennett
- **Judges:** Bennett, Bowman, Fagg
- **Cited by:** 33 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6935755

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that Cort is only a guide to determining Congressional intent, citing Thompson and Touche Ross

## Opinion text

BENNETT, District Judge,
concurring.
Judicial fathoming of Congressional intent is often a treacherous voyage. That is not so here. I wholeheartedly agree with Judge Bowman’s well-reasoned and carefully crafted opinion holding that Congress did not intend to create in § 6972 an implied private right of action for the recovery of cleanup costs. I join this opinion unreservedly for I find Judge Bowman’s application of the factors identified in Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66 , 95 S.Ct. 2080 , 45 L.Ed.2d 26 (1975), and his divination of Congressional intent, to be unassailable.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in KFC Western, Inc. v. Meghrig, 49 F.3d 518, 523 (9th Cir.1995), and Judge Fagg, in dissent here, may well be right that it may be “unfair and poor public policy to interpret § 6972(a)(1)(B) as barring restitution actions.” However, I would add that under our tripartite system of government, it is for Congress, not the federal courts, to make such policy choices. See, e.g., Hudson Distribs., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 377 U.S. 386, 395 , 84 S.Ct. 1273, 1279-80 , 12 L.Ed.2d 394 (1964); Baltimore & Ohio Ry. Co. v. Jackson, 353 U.S. 325, 331 , 77 S.Ct. 842, 846 , 1 L.Ed.2d 862 (1957); Black Hills Institute Of Geological Research v. South Dakota School of Mines & Technology, 12 F.3d 737, 744 (8th Cir.1993). The role of the federal courts, “of course, is as interpreters of the words chosen by Congress, not as policymakers or enlargers of congressional intent.” United States v. Gibbens, 25 F.3d 28, 33 (1st Cir.1994).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6935755. Public record. Not legal advice.