United States v. B & W Investment Properties’s Empirical Analysis
38 F.3d 362 · 1994
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently August 2016 · most notably United States v. Marine Shale Processors (1996), In re TMI (1995)
17 federal appellate · 1 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. § 7412 · 42 U.S.C. § 7413
Relies on Kuntz v. City of Dayton · California v. Arizona · Sullivan v. Finkelstein · General Motors Corp. v. United States · Erickson v. Trinity Theatre, 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.
“(in addition to such other factors as justice may require) the size of the business, the economic impact of the penalty on the business, the violator’s full compliance history and good faith efforts to comply, the duration of the violation as established by any credible evidence ..., payment by the violator of penalties previously assessed for the same violation, the economic benefit of noncompliance, and the seriousness of the violation.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“any person who owns, leases, operates, controls, or supervises a stationary source.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In order to establish liability under the asbestos NES-HAR the government must prove that 1) [American Can] was an owner or operator of a facility, 2) a renovation occurred, 3) asbestos was removed or stripped without complying with the requirements and practices delineated in the asbestos NESHAR and 4) a jurisdictional amount of asbestos was disturbed.”
1 later decision 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.