Gurley v. Mathis’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
8 state decisions
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. § 9605 (§ 105 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) · 5 U.S.C. § 553 (Administrative Procedure Act of 1946)
Relies on Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency · Northside Sanitary Landfill, Inc. v. Thomas · Kent County, Delaware Levy Court v. United States Environmental Protection Agency · Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency · Beverly Enterprises-Arkansas, Inc. v. Arkansas Health Services Commission
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“to provide the state with the necessary authority and funds to investigate, control, prevent, abate, treat or contain releases of hazardous substances necessary to protect the public health and environment ... and to encourage the reduction of hazardous waste generation. (b) the purpose of this subehapter is to encourage privately funded remedial action and to clarify that persons who have undertaken remedial action at a hazardous substance site ... may obtain contribution from any other person who is liable for remediation of the hazardous substance site. (c) A further purpose of this subchapter is to clarify the General Assembly’s intent to provide the department with the necessary funds for remedial action at a hazardous substance site, recognizing that both public and private funds must be expended to implement remedial action at the hazardous substance sites which exist in this state. Costs and expenses for remedial action ... are legal damages to persons liable to the state ...”
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.