Marsh v. Rosenbloom’s Empirical Analysis
499 F.3d 165 · 2007
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 6 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently October 2023 · most notably Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. (2010), In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether ("MTBE") Products Liability Litigation (2013)
10 federal appellate · 6 district · 4 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. § 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)
Relies on Hines v. Davidowitz · Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul · United States 77-1359 v. Kimbell Foods Inc · English v. General Electric Co. · Boyle v. United Technologies 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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Money recovered from [defendant] will allow DPUC to reduce the amount it allows Yankee Gas to collect from its utility customers during future rate cycles. Thus, money contributed by UGI is money that will not have to be paid by utility customers in Connecticut. The “windfall,” if that is the word, goes to the rate payer, not Yankee Gas. This is in keeping with “CERCLA’s goals of cleaning up environmental contamination and making sure that responsible parties, rather than taxpayers, bear the costs.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“(1) where Congress expressly states its intent to preempt; (2) where Congress's scheme of federal regulation is sufficiently comprehensive to give rise to a reasonable inference it leaves no room for the state to act; and (3) where state law actually conflicts with federal law.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The state-law claims here most assuredly ‘stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution' of Section 546(e), and would ‘frustrate the purposes’ of that federal legislation.”
2 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.