Most of Mr. Shefftz's expert witness casework is performed in the context of settlement negotiations. Of those cases that do proceed to litigation, almost all settle long before trial. Of those cases that have led all the way to trial or hearing, the following links provide copies of the decisions. (See the separate Testimony History page for a complete list, including all depositions and affidavits.)
Idaho Conservation League v. Magar E. Magar, d/b/a Syringa Mobile Home Park (USDC, Idaho)
See in particular p. 5 for the Court's acceptance of Mr. Shefftz's economic benefit analysis, including: "[...] the Court finds Shefftz is qualified under F.R.E. 702 to testify about the economic benefit of noncompliance to Magar. Further, the Court finds Shefftz's report in this case highly credible because it employs an accepted methodology--known as the Weighted Average Cost of Capital or "WACC"--to determine the present value of Magar's noncompliance over a given period of time."
Environment Texas Citizen Lobby, Inc. and Sierra Club v. ExxonMobil Corporation, ExxonMobil Chemical Company, and ExxonMobil Refining and Supply Company (USDC, SD Texas)
See in particular p. 64 for how Mr. Shefftz used "maintenance and capital expenditure costs delayed to calculate present-day economic benefit using the weighted-average cost of capital. The Court finds Schefftz's [sic] method [emphasis original] of calculating economic benefit to be reliable" (although the Court disagreed with the cost inputs opined on by the engineering witness).
People of the State of California and The City of San Diego v. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. et al. (USDC, SD Cal.)
See in particular p. 23 for the Court's favorable citation to Mr. Shefftz's deposition testimony.
Idaho Conservation League and Northwest Environmental Defense Center v. Atlanta Gold Corporation (USDC, Idaho)
See in particular pp. 35-38 for the Court's acceptance of Mr. Shefftz's economic benefit analysis (which formed $1.4 million of the total $2 million penalty), the Court's approval of Mr. Shefftz's consideration of the parent corporation's finances (which formed the basis for the economic impact assessment on pp. 43-44), and the reference to how Mr. Shefftz "effectively refuted" the defense witness, concluding that, "On the whole, the Court finds the approach of the Shefftz Report to be reasonable and consistent with case law."
State of Ohio v. The Shelly Company et al. (Franklin County Municipal Court)
See in particular pdf file p. 26 (native document p. 17) and pdf file pp. 58-59 (native document pp. 49-50) for Mr. Shefftz's economic benefit testimony, which accounted for nearly two-thirds of the Court-imposed penalty in excess of $350,000.
U.S. v. James and Nancy Oliver d/b/a Safety Waste Incineration (USDC, Alaska)
See in particular pp. 18-20 and p. 26 for the Court’s favorable citation to Mr. Shefftz's testimony on economic benefit and ability to pay (with regard to financial analysis of both the business and the individual owners' finances).
In the matter of Valimet, Inc. (U.S. EPA Administrative Court)
See in particular pp. 10-12 for the Court’s favorable citations to Mr. Shefftz's testimony on size-of-business indicators, as well as pp. 27-28 for his testimony on economic benefit.
U.S. v. Government of Guam (USDC, Guam)
See in particular p. 3 the Court's favorable citation to Mr. Shefftz's financial recommendation.
U.S. v. Newmont USA Limited and Dawn Mining Company, LLC (USDC, ED Washington)
See pp. 97-98 for the ruling on orphan share and provisional allocation, on which Mr. Shefftz's client at the U.S. Department of Justice wrote to him that, "the Court found that Dawn had not established that it is insolvent or otherwise judgment proof, and thus ruled that Dawn and Newmont were jointly and severally liable at the Midnite Mine. Although the Court cited to neither our brief nor your declaration on this issue, I have no doubt that these documents were important to his decision." (Note that Mr. Shefftz's declaration is not available for public distribution as it was based in part on confidential business information.)
In the matter of Rizing Sun LLC (U.S. EPA Administrative Court)
See in particular p. 27 for the Court's imposition of a penalty amount based on Mr. Shefftz's testimony as to respondent’s ability to pay.
In the matter of Vico Construction Corporation and Amelia Venture Properties, L.L.C. (U.S. EPA Administrative Court)
See in particular pp. 41-42 for the Court's favorable citation to Mr. Shefftz's testimony on ability to pay, and pp. 43-46 for his economic benefit testimony.
U.S. v. The New Portland Meadows, Inc. (USDC Oregon)
See pp. 8-9 for the Court's rejection of the defense expert's argument as to the lack of any economic benefit, and the Court's adoption of one of Mr. Shefftz's calculations as the basis for the defendant’s economic benefit.
United States Public Interest Research Group, Stephen E. Crawford, and Charles Fitzgerald v. Heritage Salmon, Inc.; U.S. PIRG et al. v. Stolt Sea Farm, Inc.; U.S. PIRG et al. v. Atlantic Salmon of Maine LLC (USDC, Maine)
See the bottom of p. 23 for the Court's favorable citation to the economic benefit testimony (as presented by Mr. Shefftz).
In the matter of Titan Wheel Corporation of Iowa (U.S. EPA Administrative Court)
See pp. 60-63 for the Court’s finding as to the appropriateness of Mr. Shefftz's analysis and calculations.
In the matter of EK Associates, L.P., d/b/a EKCO/GLACO, and EK Management Corporation (U.S. EPA Administrative Court)
See Section IV.B.6. for the Court's favorable citation to Mr. Shefftz's economic benefit testimony.