Clinton County Commissioners v. United States Environmental Protection Agency’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 federal appellate · 7 district · 1 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(h) Timing of review. No federal court shall have jurisdiction under federal law ... or under State law which is applicable or relevant and appropriate under section 9621 of this title (relating to cleanup standards) to review any challenges to removal or remedial action selected under section 960k of this title, ... in any action except one of the following: }{: sj; # sjc # (4) An action under section 9659 of this title (relating to citizens suits) alleging that the removal or remedial action taken under section 9604, of this title or secured under section 9606 of this title was in violation of any requirement of this chapter. Such an action may not be brought with regard to a removal where a remedial action is to be undertaken at the site.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. WorldWorks I, Inc. v. United States Department of the Army · 165 F. Supp. 2d 253 - Farmers Against Irresponsible Remediation (FAIR) Ex Rel. Hanehan v. United States Environmental Protection Agency

2. “The purpose of [§ 9613(h) ] is to ensure that there will be no delays associated with a legal challenge of the particular removal or remedial action selected under section [9604] or secured ... under section [9606], Without such a provision, responses to releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances could be unduly delayed, thereby exacerbating the threat of damage to human health or the environment. A person’s rights to challenge the choice of removal or remedial action are preserved, however, and can be exercised ... [through] a citizen suit alleging that the removal or remedial action was in violation of any requirement of the Act.... Id. at 1024 (quoting H.R.Rep. No. 99-253(V), at 25-26 (1985) (alteration in original)).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 62 F. Supp. 2d 1 - Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers International Union v. Pena · 257 F. Supp. 2d 8 - General Electric Co. v. Whitman

3. “The terms “remove” or “removal” means [sic] the cleanup or removal of released hazardous substances from the environment, such actions as may be necessary [sic] taken in the event of the threat of release of hazardous substances into the environment ..., the disposal of re moved material, or the taking of such other actions as may be necessary to prevent, minimize, or mitigate damage to the public health or welfare or to the environment.... The terms “remedy” or “remedial action” means those actions consistent with permanent remedy taken instead of or in addition to removal actions in the event of a release or threatened release of a hazardous substance into the environment. ... The term includes, but is not limited to, such actions at the location of the release as ... recycling or reuse.... [T]he term includes offsite transport and offsite storage, treatment, destruction, or secure disposition of hazardous substances and associated contaminated materials. 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601 (23) and (24) (emphasis added). 5”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 62 F. Supp. 2d 1 - Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers International Union v. Pena