# United States v. Rohm and Haas Company Rohm and Haas Delaware Valley, Inc. Chemical Properties, Inc. Bristol Township Authority

> Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · October 22, 1993 · 2 F.3d 1265

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9485803

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America v. ROHM AND HAAS COMPANY; Rohm and Haas Delaware Valley, Inc.; Chemical Properties, Inc.; Bristol Township Authority, Appellants
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
- **Decided:** October 22, 1993
- **Citations:** 2 F.3d 1265
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing
- **Judges:** Stapleton, Cowen, Barry, Sloviter, Becker, Mansmann, Greenberg, Hutchinson, Scirica, Nygaard, Alito, Roth, Lewis
- **Cited by:** 118 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Overruled on other grounds by United States v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co., 432 F.3d 161 (2005).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9485803

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- recognizing _________________________________________________________________ 3 Several do not warrant discussion: that Conoco and Agrico, unlike Beazer, had refused cooperation with the EPA; that the EPA had indi- cated its belief that Conoco and Agrico should be liable by su…
- recognizing that upon proof that a hazardous substance found on a site could not be “fairly attributable” to a party sued under § 107(a), that party’s properly “apportioned share would be zero”
- holding apportionment required a showing “that there is a way to determine what portion of the ‘harm’ ... is fairly attributable to [the defendant], as opposed to other responsible parties.”

## Opinion text

SUR PETITION FOR REHEARING
Oct. 22, 1993.
Before: SLOVITER, Chief Judge, BECKER, STAPLETON, MANSMANN, GREENBERG, HUTCHINSON, SCIRICA, COWEN, NYGAARD, ALITO, ROTH and LEWIS, Circuit Judges, and BARRY, District Judge. *
The petition for rehearing filed by appel-lees in the above-entitled case having been submitted to the judges who participated in the decision of this Court and to all the other available circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service, and no judge who concurred in the decision having asked for rehearing, and a majority of the circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service not having voted for rehearing by the court in banc, the petition for rehearing is denied. Judge Becker would have granted rehearing.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9485803. Public record. Not legal advice.