In the Matter Of: The Complaint of Metlife Capital Corp., Etc., Commonwealth of Puerto Rico v. M/v Emily S., Etc., in the Matter Of: Bunker Group, Inc., Commonwealth of Puerto Rico v. M/v Emily S., Etc.’s Empirical Analysis
132 F.3d 818 · 1997
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently March 2019
13 federal appellate · 3 district ·
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
Relies on Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill · Radzanower v. Touche Ross & Co. · Posadas v. National City Bank · Maryland Casualty Co. v. Cushing · Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Southern Pacific 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Defendants also have not offered evidence that the EPA acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner or that there were, 'specialists with conflicting views.' "). In short, the government is entitled to summary judgment with respect to defendant's liability for costs associated with the Williams B Facility removal action. C. The OPA's Third-Party Defense . Defendant claims it cannot be liable under the OPA for the January 5, 2008, Davis Facility spill because the spill was caused by the vandalism of an unknown third-party. ( See Dkt. 252-1, Jt. Br. at 42 & 49-51). The court disagrees. "The OPA imposes strict liability for pollution removal costs and damages on the 'responsible party' for a vessel or a facility from which oil is discharged.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Notwithstanding any other provision or rule of law, and subject to the provisions of this Act, each responsible party for a vessel or a facility from which oil is discharged, or which poses the substantial threat of a discharge of oil, into or upon the navigable waters or adjoining shorelines or the exclusive economic zone is liable for the removal costs and damages specified in subsection (b) of this section that result from such incident.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[s]imply stated, the Limitation Act is contrary to every goal of the TAPAA. It allows vessel owners virtually to eliminate liability for catastrophic damages. Application of the Limitation Act to any aspect of the TAPAA would frustrate completely TAPAA's comprehensive remedial nature.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.