Disimone v. Browner’s Empirical Analysis
121 F.3d 1262 · 1997
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently February 2024 · most notably Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (2000), Bernie Galvin V. Kevin Hay (2004)
4 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 7401 (Air Quality Act of 1967) · 42 U.S.C. § 7410 · 42 U.S.C. § 7515 · 42 U.S.C. § 7604 · 42 U.S.C. § 7607
Relies on Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore · Olga Zdanok v. The Glidden Company, Durkee Famous Foods Division, Frank T. Alexander v. The Glidden Company, Durkee Famous Foods Division · Stephens v. Secretary · Milgard Tempering, Inc. v. Selas Corp. of America · Clark v. Bear Stearns & Co.
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) is there a substantial overlap between the evidence or argument to be advanced in the second proceeding and that advanced in the first? (2) does the new evidence or argument involve the application of the same rule of law as that involved in the prior proceeding? (3) could pretrial preparation and discovery related to the matter presented in the first action reasonably be expect ed to have embraced the matter sought to be presented in the second? [and] (4) how closely related are the claims involved in the two proceedings?”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Courts are granted broad discretion to apply the doctrine of collateral estoppel.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Similarly, the fact that different citizen petitioners brought the present suit need not preclude application of the law of the case doctrine because both suits were brought against the same agency, about the same issue, and on behalf of the same citizen population.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.