Sidney S. Arst Co. v. Pipefitters Welfare Educ. Fund’s Empirical Analysis
25 F.3d 417 · 1994
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 107 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2019 · most notably United States v. Bestfoods (1998), Redwing Carriers, Inc. v. Saraland Apartments (1996)
22 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 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. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 9601 (§ 101 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)
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination Unit · United States v. Northeastern Pharmaceutical & Chemical Co. · Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Sales, Inc. v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc. · Klein v. Board of Tax Supervisors
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 107 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] plaintiff must allege that persons associated with the corporation directly and personally engaged in conduct that led to the specific environmental damage at issue in the case. Without such direct, personal involvement, the corporation and not the associated individuals must be regarded as owning or operating the hazardous waste site in question.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“district court has a duty to consider whether a plaintiff’s allegations could provide relief under any available legal theory,”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief”
3 later decisions 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.