Ashenbaugh v. Crucible Inc. 1975 Salaried Retirement Plan

holding that the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) did not constitute an unlawful bill of attainder | stating "the language of CERCLA's new contribution provisions reveals Congress's concern that the relative culpability of each responsible party be considered in determining the proportionate share of costs each must bear" | dismissing equal protection challenge to mandatory retirement for judges in part due to summary action of Supreme Court in Diamond | dismissing equal protection challenge to mandatory retirement for judges in part due to summary action of Supreme Court in Diamond | holding release pre-dating CERCLA bars CERCLA claim | supporting the proposition that unfunded early retirement benefits are not "accrued benefits" | stating “the language of CERCLA’s new contribution provisions reveals Congress’s concern that the relative culpability of each responsible party be considered in determining the proportionate share of costs each must bear” | supporting the proposition that unfunded early retirement benefits are not “accrued benefits” | joint and several liability for cleanup costs imposed upon waste generators whose waste caused pollution at site did not violate due process | traditional common law rules holding two or more persons jointly and severally liable for a single and indivisible harm applicable to federal CERCLA cases | joint and several liability for cleanup costs imposed upon waste generators whose waste caused pollution at site did not violate due process | property owners Hutchinson and Seidenberg held liable under § 107(a)(2) merely by virtue of “ownership of the ... property [and disposal of] hazardous substances ... on the property during their period of ownership” | “the language of CERCLA’s new contribution provisions reveals .Congress’ concern that the relative culpability of each responsible party be considered in determining the proportionate share of costs each must bear” | “The traditional elements of tort culpability ... simply are absent from the statute.” | “§ 1054(g) does not cover partial terminations and so would not apply here" | to meet the burden of establishing a reasonable basis for apportioning liability among responsible parties, the defendants must establish that the harm at the site is divisible among responsible parties | generator defendants shipped drums and containers of known hazardous substances to site | CERCLA has been interpreted to impose joint and several liability | interpreting section 107(a) as imposing strict liability | interpreting § 107(a) as imposing strict liability