Action Manufacturing Co. v. Simon Wrecking Co.’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 9601 (§ 101 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980) · 42 U.S.C. § 9607 (§ 107 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) · 42 U.S.C. § 9622 (§ 122 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980)
Relies on United States v. Bestfoods · Key Tronic Corp. v. United States · United States v. Northeastern Pharmaceutical & Chemical Co. · Smith Land Improvement Corporation 87-5740 v. Celotex Corporation Smith Land & Improvement Corporation 87-5741 · New Castle County v. Halliburton NUS 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““(i) the ability of the parties to demonstrate that their contribution to a discharge, release or disposal of a hazardous waste can be distinguished; (ii) the amount of the hazardous waste involved; (iii) the degree of toxicity of the hazardous waste involved; (iv) the degree of involvement by the parties in the generation, transportation, treatment; storage, or disposal of the hazardous waste; (v) the degree of care exercised by the parties with respect to the hazardous waste concerned, taking into account the characteristics of such waste; and (vi) the degree of cooperation by -the parties with Federal, State, or local officials to prevent any harm to the public health or the environment.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“have concluded or assumed that the orphan shares should be allocated equitably among plaintiff and defendant [potentially responsible parties]”). 66 . Id. 67 . Occidental argues that a party, like Lyon-dell, who settles its CERCLA liability with the government has been held accountable and its share cannot qualify as an orphan to be distributed among other responsible parties. In support, it reminds that CERCLA provides that a”
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.