In this task, you will be shown a prompt from a judicial decision and multiple holding statements derived from citations following text in a legal decision.  Holdings represent the governing legal rule when the law is applied to a particular set of facts. There are five answer choices for each citing text. The correct answer is the holding statement that corresponds to the citing text. The four incorrect answers are other holding statements. You should find the correct option. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.
--------
Question: Thus, CERC-LA specifically provides for a private right of action to institute civil actions to recover the costs involved in the cleanup of hazardous wastes from those responsible for their creation. Dedham Water Co. v. Cumberland Farms Dairy, Inc., 889 F.2d 1146, 1150 (1st Cir.1989); 3550 Stevens Creek Assocs. v. Barclays Bank of Cal., 915 F.2d 1355, 1357 (9th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 917, 111 S.Ct. 2014, 114 L.Ed.2d 101 (1991). Moreover, an entity that is responsible for the remediation of a hazardous waste site under CERCLA may assert a claim for contribution against other responsible parties under § 9613(f). New Castle County v. Halliburton NUS Corp., 111 F.3d 1116, 1122 (3d Cir.1997). See also SC Holdings, Inc. v. AAA Realty Co., 935 F.Supp. 1354, 1362 (D.N.J.1996)(<HOLDING>). In its reply papers, the Novak Group does not 
 Holding statements: (A) holding the michigan department of natural resources liable under cercla for remedial actions which exacerbated the contamination at a site (B) recognizing a right to contribution (C) holding that investigatory costs are considered costs of response under cercla (D) holding that parties liable for at least a portion of the costs of remediating a hazardous site are limited to the contribution scheme under section 9613f of cercla (E) holding that site control alone is an improper basis for imposition on lessees of owner liability under cercla

Answer: (D)


Question: would, in general, slow down the dispute resolution process.” Id. at 946, 115 S.Ct. 1920. Moreover, it was rejected as “legally erroneous,” for the “basic objective in this area is not to resolve disputes in the quickest manner possible, no matter what the parties’ wishes, but to ensure that commercial arbitration agreements, like other contracts, are enforced according to their terms and according to the intentions of the parties.” Id. at 946, 115 S.Ct. 1920. C. In This Case, The Question Of Arbitrability Is For The Court The second question is whether the power to determine arbitrability resides with the court or the AAA Panel. The answer turns upon what the parties agreed to about that question in the Merger Agreement. First Option 543, 546-547, 84 S.Ct. 909, 11 L.Ed.2d 898 (1964)(<HOLDING>). Similarly, a disagreement about whether an 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a court should decide whether an arbitration agreement survived a corporate merger and bound the resulting corporation (B) holding that a court should decide whether the arbitration contract bound parties who did not sign the agreement (C) holding trial court must decide whether to compel arbitration of personal injury claim of party who was not signatory to arbitration agreement (D) holding that in ruling on a motion to compel arbitration a court must consider 1 whether the parties have entered into a valid arbitration agreement 2 whether an arbitrable issue exists and 3 whether the right to arbitration has been waived (E) holding that a gateway dispute about whether the parties are bound by a given arbitration clause raises a question of arbitrability for a court to decide

Answer: (A)


Question: v. Savage, 228 F.3d 367, 370 (4th Cir.2000). This court recently decided a similar case, the facts of which are closely analogous to the case at bar. In Zimbelman, two employees were fired from their jobs with the Air Force under suspicion of having committed various acts of misconduct, including theft and fraud. See Zimbelman, 228 F.3d at 369. The employees brought suit against their supervisors and the Air Force investigators who had conducted the investigation into their misconduct, asserting several constitutional claims, including one under Bivens for a violation of their Fifth Amendment right to preserve their reputations. See id. at 370. This court affirmed the dismissal of the Bivens claims, concluding that they “indisputably ar[o]se from a federal e 959, 961 (10th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>); Gleason v. Malcom, 718 F.2d 1044, 1048 (11th 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that where the employment of the injured employees was the occasion of the injury the injuries arose out of employment (B) holding csra controlled plaintiffs claims which arose as result of employment relationship (C) holding that plaintiffs were not released from the exclusive remedial framework of the csra when their claims arose from their federal employment even though the csra provided plaintiffs with no remedy (D) holding that plaintiffs claims were precluded by csra because actions complained of arose from federal employment relationship even though many of the alleged violations occurred after the employment relationship was terminated (E) holding that injury incurred when employee returned to retrieve paycheck six days after employment had been terminated occurred in course of employment

Answer:
(D)