Santa Fe Pacific Realty Corporation v. United States of America Richard G. Armor

50 F.3d 16, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 19012, 1995 WL 120662
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedMarch 21, 1995
Docket93-16739
StatusUnpublished

This text of 50 F.3d 16 (Santa Fe Pacific Realty Corporation v. United States of America Richard G. Armor) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Santa Fe Pacific Realty Corporation v. United States of America Richard G. Armor, 50 F.3d 16, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 19012, 1995 WL 120662 (9th Cir. 1995).

Opinion

50 F.3d 16

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
SANTA FE PACIFIC REALTY CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America; Richard G. Armor, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 93-16739.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 17, 1995.*
Decided March 21, 1995.

IN PART, REVERSED IN PART.

Before: GOODWIN, CANBY and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

The sole issue presented by this appeal is whether the district court erred in denying all attorneys' fees incurred by Catellus Development (formerly Santa Fe Pacific Realty Corporation) in a CERCLA cleanup pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 9607(a)(4)(B). The parties now agree, as do we, that the district court's decision should be affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded for a determination of which, if any, attorneys' fees are recoverable in light of Key Tronic Corp. v. United States, 114 S.Ct. 1960 (1994). We accordingly submit this case on the briefs, and reverse that part of the district court's decision that denied fees for work "that is closely tied to the actual cleanup" within the meaning of Key Tronic, 114 S.Ct. at 1967. We remand so that the district court may determine what part of the requested fees, if any, are recoverable under that standard. In all other respects, the decision of the district court is affirmed. Each party will bear its own costs on appeal.

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.

*

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without argument. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a) and Ninth Circuit Rule 34-4

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Ronald Bennett
50 F.3d 16 (Ninth Circuit, 1995)
Key Tronic Corp. v. United States
511 U.S. 809 (Supreme Court, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
50 F.3d 16, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 19012, 1995 WL 120662, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/santa-fe-pacific-realty-corporation-v-united-state-ca9-1995.