Browning-Ferris Industries of Illinois, Inc. v. Ter Maat

United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Corporations

CorporationsSuperfund liabilityPersonal liabilityJoint liabilityLaw of the caseCERCLASuperfundlaw of the case

Facts

Browning-Ferris sued Richard Ter Maat and two corporations he controlled, M.I.G. and AAA, seeking contribution under the Superfund statute for costs incurred in cleaning up a contaminated landfill. In the prior stage of the case, some cleanup costs had been allocated to the two corporate defendants, and the court of appeals remanded to reconsider Ter Maat's personal liability and joint liability. On remand, the district court found that Ter Maat supervised the day-to-day operations of the landfill, including the dumping of wastes that caused the contamination. The district court also found that all three defendants participated in operating the landfill, and noted that joint liability mattered because M.I.G. had no assets.

Issue

Whether the defendants could relitigate the standard previously laid down by the Seventh Circuit for determining an individual's personal liability under the Superfund statute, and whether the district court properly found Ter Maat personally liable and all three defendants jointly liable based on their involvement in landfill operations.

Rule

Under the law of the case doctrine, absent special circumstances, both the district court and the court of appeals must follow rules of law established by the appellate court at an earlier stage of the same lawsuit. Applying the previously established Superfund standard, an individual is personally liable when he personally operates the landfill, including supervising the day-to-day operations and dumping activities that produce the contamination; defendants who all directly participate in operating the landfill may be held jointly liable for the allocated cleanup costs.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a federal cleanup-contribution suit arising from a waste site near Akron, the court of appeals previously held that an individual may be personally liable if he personally operated the site. On remand, Nolan Pierce argues that the appellate court adopted the wrong legal standard and asks the district court to apply a narrower one, but he points to no changed circumstances.

How should the district court rule on Nolan's argument?

Explanation. The majority held that when the court of appeals has already laid down a rule of law in an earlier stage of the same case, both the district court and the appellate court must follow that rule absent special circumstances. A mere assertion that the earlier rule was erroneous is not enough. (Derived from Browning-Ferris Industries of Illinois, Inc. v. Ter Maat (n.d.).)