Borden Ranch Partnership v. United States Army Corps of Engineers’s Empirical Analysis
261 F.3d 810 · 2001
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2023 · most notably Carson Harbor Village, Ltd. v. Unocal Corp. (2000), Ecological Rights Foundation v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (2013)
9 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from California Eastern District Court)
Relationships
Relies on Gwaltney of Smithfield, Ltd. v. Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Inc. · United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc. · Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. United States Army Corps of Engineers · Avoyelles Sportsmen's League, Inc. v. Marsh · Atlantic States Legal Foundation, Inc. v. Tyson Foods, 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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a statutory pollutant and a type of material that up until then was not present on the Deaton property. It is of no consequence that what is now dredged spoil was previously present on the same property in the less threatening form of dirt and vegetation in an undisturbed state. What is important is that once that material was excavated from the wetland, its redeposit in that same wetland added a pollutant where none had been before. 42 Id. at 335; see also Avoyelles Sportsmen's League, Inc. v. Marsh, 715 F.2d 897 , 923-24 & n. 43 (5th Cir.1983) (noting that term”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[t]he statute imposes a maximum penalty “per day for each violation.” 33 U.S.C. § 1319 (d). It does not say “per each day in which violations occur” or “per day in which a party pollutes.” The focus is clearly on each violation, and courts have consistently rejected attempts to limit civil penalties to the number of days in which violations occur. A contrary rule would encourage individuals to stack all their violations into one “Pollution Day,” in which innumerable offenses could occur, subject only to the $25,000 maximum.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[A]ny discernible, confined and discrete conveyance, including but not limited to any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fissure, container, rolling stock, concentrated animal feeding operation, or vessel or other floating craft, from which pollutants are or may be discharged. This term does not include agricultural stormwater discharges and return flows from irrigated agriculture.”
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.