United States v. Manzo’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 3 district ·
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 9601 (§ 101 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980) · 42 U.S.C. § 9604 (§ 104 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. § 9621 (§ 121 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980)
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Conley v. Gibson · Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“discrete action that comprises an incremental step toward comprehensively addressing site problems.... The cleanup of a site can be divided into a number of operable units depending on the complexity of the problems associated with the site. Operable units may address geographical portions of a site, specific site problems, or initial phases of an action, or may consist of any set of actions performed over time or any actions that are concurrent but located in different parts of a site.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) the owner and operator of a vessel or a facility, (2) any person who at the time of disposal of any hazardous substance owned or operated any facility at which such hazardous substances were disposed of, (3) any person who by contract, agreement, or otherwise arranged for disposal or treatment, or arranged with a transporter for transport for disposal or treatment, of hazardous substances owned or possessed by such person, by any other party or entity, at any facility or incineration vessel owned or operated by another party or entity and containing such hazardous substances, and (4) any person who accepts or accepted any hazardous substances for transport to disposal or treatment facilities, incineration vessels or sites selected by such person, from which there is a release, or a threatened release which causes the incurrence of response costs, of a hazardous substance”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“By permitting the United States to bring cost recovery actions based on the timing of each ROD and operable unit, the Court would be honoring CERCLA’s two principal goals of facilitating the cleanup of potentially dangerous hazardous waste sites and requiring polluters to pay the costs of their pollution.” This Court is not unmindful of the conflict between this decision and its own. By way of explanation, this Court notes that the United States was the plaintiff in Manzo , and the court there properly invoked the judicial presumption that a statute of limitations should be”
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.