Featured Publications

Holland & Knight's Jennifer Hernandez Named One of the 50 Most Influential Minority Lawyers in America

SAN FRANCISCO – Jennifer Hernandez, a partner in the firm's San Francisco office, was named one of the 50 Most Influential Minority Lawyers in America for 2008 by the National Law Journal. Lawyers selected to the list have had a national impact in their legal fields and beyond during the past five years, demonstrated the power to change the law, shape public affairs, launch industries and accomplish large projects.

More

Two Holland & Knight Lawyers Among Top Lobbyists In Washington, D.C. by The Hill

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Former Congressman Gerry Sikorski (D-MN), chair of Holland & Knight's Government Section, and Rich Gold, chair of the firm's Public Policy and Regulation Practice Group, have been recognized by The Hill newspaper as two of Washington, D.C.'s top 50 lobbyists.

More

Search Our Library

Search

  • Printer friendly
  • Email this page to a friend
  • Generate a PDF version of this page
Environment
Newsletter - Third Quarter 1999
 
In this Issue...
Dry Cleaning Contamination Cleanup: Immunity
 
September 1, 1999
 

In a recent decision, Metropolitan Dade County v. Chase Federal Housing, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed that the immunity provisions of the Florida Dry Cleaning Contamination Cleanup Act apply retroactively to bar claims seeking the recovery of cleanup costs incurred prior to a facility's participation in the cleanup program. Dade County incurred costs arising from groundwater contamination caused by a release from a dry cleaner. After the county incurred its costs the dry cleaner applied for participation in the state cleanup program and the state approved the application. The county argued that while the dry cleaner may be shielded from cost recovery under the Act's immunity provisions for costs incurred after it was accepted into the program, it was not immune from claims seeking pre-eligibility costs. The court concluded otherwise, finding the express terms of the Act and its purpose demonstrate a legislative intent to apply the immunity provisions retroactively and that retroactive application was constitutional.