Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 13 F. Supp. 2d 1095 - Morrison Enterprises v. McShares, Inc.

13 F. Supp. 2d 1095 - Morrison Enterprises v. McShares, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

1998

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
December 2003
most recently cited

3 district ·

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2201 · 42 U.S.C. § 9601 (§ 101 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980) · 42 U.S.C. § 9606 (§ 106 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980) · 42 U.S.C. § 9607 (§ 107 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980) · 42 U.S.C. § 9613 (§ 113 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980) · 42 U.S.C. § 9622 (§ 122 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980)

Relies on California v. ARC America Corp. · Alaska v. United States · Pickens v. Lockheed Corp. · Constant v. United States · Specht v. Jensen

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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(ii) Any response action carried out in compliance with the terms of an order issued by EPA pursuant to section 106 of CERCLA, or a consent decree entered into pursuant to section 122 of CERCLA, will be considered “consistent with the NCP.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. 282 F. Supp. 2d 687 - United States v. Atlas Lederer Co.
  2. “The distinction is important because the requirements for NCP compliance are different, depending on how the response action is characterized.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. 57 F. Supp. 2d 1369 - Southfund Partners III v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.
  3. “based on immaterial or insubstantial deviations”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. 57 F. Supp. 2d 1369 - Southfund Partners III v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.

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.