ELR Citation: ELR 21215
No(s). s. 92-1430, -1503 (4th Cir. Feb 5, 1993)

The court holds that to prevail in an inverse condemnation claim, property owners must establish that the county did some affirmative act and that to prevail in a Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) cost recovery action they must show that there was a release of a hazardous substance by the county. It is within a district court's discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state inverse condemnation claim when it has valid jurisdiction over a federal claim. The court holds that it has valid jurisdiction over the two claims, because they revolve around the same central issue, whether the county used or disposed of or was likely to use or dispose of trichloroethylene (TCE). To prevail in a CERCLA cost recovery action, property owners must establish a release or threat of release of a hazardous substance from the defendant's property. To prevail in a state inverse condemnation claim, property owners must show, among other things, an affirmative act on the part of a governmental agency. The property owners failed to present any evidence that would connect the county to the TCE contamination of their property, nor have they produced any evidence connecting the county to a release of hazardous substances.

Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellees
John C. Ormond Jr.
McNair Law Firm
Nationsbank Tower, P.O. Box 11390, Columbia SC 29211
(803) 799-9800

Counsel for Defendant-Appellant
Bradford N. Wyche
Wyche, Burgess, Freeman & Parham
44 E. Camperdown Way, P.O. Box 728, Greenville SC 29602
(803) 242-3131

Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and RUSSELL and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.