Ethyl Corp. v. Adams’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently March 2022
13 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 Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation Same · Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation · Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Wichita Board of Trade · Bourjois, Inc. v. Chapman · Mortimer W. Hanly, Arthur Gladstone, Frederick C. Stutzmann, Jr., Steven Charles Paras, and Charles Arthur Fehr v. Securities and Exchange 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is self-evident that tax exemption was not to be extended to pollution control facilities generally but only to those utilized primarily for the purpose of pollution abatement. The Legislature has used no language which indicates an intention that the phrase be given a unique or particular meaning. Construed in accordance with common meaning, this phrase connotes a basic, fundamental or principal purpose as opposed to one which is secondary or merely incidental. Thus we construe the statutory language as allowing a tax exemption to those pollution abatement facilities which are basic or fundamental to the control, reduction or elimination of either water or air pollution caused by industrial waste....[TJhe legislature sought to reward pollution abatement efforts with tax exemptions but, equally clear, it is the intent to limit such exemption to facilities which primarily serve that basic purpose.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“If § 1760(29)(B) were to be construed to authorize an exemption merely because, in installing a facility, the taxpayer was primarily motivated by an intention to reduce, control, or eliminate “water pollution caused by industrial waste,” this would mean that a facility might qualify for the exemption, regardless of whether it performed as intended. We cannot believe that the legislation was designed to make the intention' of the taxpayer, as distinguished from the use of the facility, the touchstone of the exemption. 4”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“§ 656. Real Estate The following real estate is exempt from taxation: E. Pollution control facilities. (2) Air pollution control facilities, certified as such by the Commissioner of Environmental Protection, and all parts and accessories thereof. (a) "Facility" means any appliance, equipment, machinery, installation or structures installed, acquired or placed in operation primarily for the purpose of reducing, controlling, eliminating or disposing of industrial air pollutants.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.