United States v. Knote’s Empirical Analysis
29 F.3d 1297 · 1994
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently September 2022 · most notably United States v. Administrative Enterprises, Inc. (1995), Pure Country, Inc. v. Sigma Chi Fraternity (2002)
18 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 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
Relies on United States v. Swift & Co. · Sloan v. Hicks · United States v. ITT Continental Baking Co. · Sunnyside Valley Irrigation District v. United States · Taft v. Federal Express Corp.
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[E]ven if the structure, language, and context of the decree did not combine to render the district court's interpretation of the text permissible, the district court has the inherent equitable power to modify a consent decree.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“a kind of private law, agreed to by the parties and given shape over time through interpretation by the court that entered it. We therefore give a large measure of deference to the interpretation of the district court that actually entered the decree.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“3 This is a simple process, which calls for informal talks about the problem, to be followed, if necessary, by a written submission to the EPA which then makes a final decision. That decision may be reviewed by the district court only for arbitrariness and capriciousness, with the Knotes bearing the burden of proof. EPA Appendix, at 31-32 4 During the district court proceeding, the EPA admitted it had never analyzed the relevant data from the building 5 The court below is the same court that issued the consent decree 6 The district court, which was on the scene, found the same proposition”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.