“It does not appear that this Court, nor any court in the United States Court of Appeals, has authored a definitive opinion on the meaning of the consumer product exception.”
How later courts described this case
- “It does not appear that this Court, nor any court in the United States Court of Appeals, has authored a definitive opinion on the meaning of the consumer product exception.”
- “[T]he starting point for statutory interpretation is the language of the statute itself.... When that language is plain we must abide by it.”
- “facility is defined in the broadest possible terms, encompassing far more than traditional waste sites.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
Jan. 8, 1999
DeMOSS, Circuit Judge:
Construing the Suggestion for Rehearing en Banc of Defendants-Appellees Safeway Transportation, Inc., and TMI Enterprises, Inc., as a Petition for Panel Rehearing, we conclude that the petition is due to be GRANTED-IN-PART as follows. The last sentence in the introduction is revised from “We vacate the district court’s judgment and remand this action for entry of judgment in favor of Uniroyal,” to read ‘We vacate the district court’s judgment and remand this action for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.” Also, the last sentence in the opinion’s conclusion is revised from “Based on the foregoing, we VACATE the judgment of the district court granting summary judgment to the defendants, and REMAND to the district court for entry of judgment in favor of Uniroyal as to CERCLA liability, and such further proceedings as to damages as may be required,” to read “Based on the foregoing, we VACATE the judgment of the district court granting summary judgment to the defendants, and REMAND to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.” Other than those two modifications, our opinion remains unchanged.