Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 449 U.S. 64 - Environmental Protection Agency v. National Crushed Stone Ass'n

Environmental Protection Agency v. National Crushed Stone Ass'n’s Empirical Analysis

1980

Citation profile

645
cited by 645 later decisions
22
cited 22 times by the Supreme Court
7
states following
March 2021
most recently cited

294 federal appellate · 70 district · 22 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 645 later decisions (22 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2021 · most notably Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo (1982), Reno v. Catholic Social Services, Inc. (1993)

294 federal appellate · 70 district · 22 state decisions

401019801990200020102020decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedNational Crushed Stone Ass'n v. Environmental Protection Agency (from Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Applies 15 U.S.C. § 636 · 33 U.S.C. § 1251 (Alternative Water Sources Act of 2000) · 33 U.S.C. § 1311 · 33 U.S.C. § 1314 · 33 U.S.C. § 1342 · 33 U.S.C. § 1362 · 33 U.S.C. § 1367 · 33 U.S.C. § 1369

Relies on Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner · Udall v. Tallman · Harris v. McRae · Environmental Protection Agency v. California Ex Rel. State Water Resources Control Board · E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Train

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 645 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “'great deference to the interpretation given the statute by the officers or agency charged with its administration.'”
    26 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “the total cost of application of technology in relation to the effluent reduction benefits to be achieved from such application.”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “assessing BAT[,] total cost is no longer to be considered in comparison to effluent reduction benefits,”
    5 later decisions 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.