Sun Enterprises., Ltd. v. Train’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently December 2000
4 federal appellate · 2 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.
Relationships
Applies 16 U.S.C. § 661 (Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act) · 16 U.S.C. § 662 · 16 U.S.C. § 668 · 16 U.S.C. § 703 (Arctic Tundra Habitat Emergency Conservation Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1343 · 28 U.S.C. § 1361 · 33 U.S.C. § 1251 (Alternative Water Sources Act of 2000) · 33 U.S.C. § 1311
Relies on United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Edelman v. Jordan · Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc. · Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis · Perez v. United States
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Plaintiffs seek to have the Court exercise pendent jurisdiction over the state law claims . . ..In order for pendent jurisdiction to exist, “[t]he state and federal claims must derive from a common nucleus of operative fact. . . . ” This Court’s subject matter jurisdiction is limited strictly to questions arising from the discharge into Brown Brook of pollutants which qualify as “dredged or fill material,” within the meaning . of the Water Act. However, plaintiffs’ state law claims as alleged involve not only discharge of “dredged or fill material,” but also discharge of sewage treatment effluent and other activities. Since the state claims present substantial issues of fact additional to those presented by the discharge of “dredged or fill material,” . . . the state and federal claims cannot be said to derive from a common nucleus of operative fact, and this Court is without pendent jurisdiction.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ * * * the damage allegedly being wrought upon the plaintiffs stems from the activities of the private defendants. Such injuries to plaintiffs are not authorized by the permits issued by the town defendants; and although the private defendants may in a sense be encouraged in their alleged transgressions by lackluster enforcement of the law by the town defendants, the actions of the town defendants as alleged in the complaint are not such as would raise a substantial question of deprivation or confiscation of property under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. * * *” Id., at 222 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the public notice, fact, sheet, and tentative determinations”
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.