Control Data Corporation v. Scsc Corp Control Data Coproration’s Empirical Analysis
53 F.3d 930 · 1995
Citation profile
36 federal appellate · 20 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 109 later decisions — most recently June 2018 · most notably United States v. Davis (2001), Bancamerica Commercial Corporation Asarco Inc v. Mosher Steel of Kansas Inc Trinity Industries Inc (1996)
36 federal appellate · 20 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. § 9601 (§ 101 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980) · 42 U.S.C. § 9606 (§ 106 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)
Relies on Hensley v. Eckerhart · Salve Regina College v. Russell · Key Tronic Corp. v. United States · Mmahat v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. · Clark v. Roemer
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 109 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In resolving contribution claims, the court may allocate response costs among liable parties using such equitable factors as the court determines are appropriate.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“CERCLA focuses on whether the defendant's release or threatened release caused harm to the plaintiff in the form of response costs,”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) the ability of the parties to demonstrate that their contribution to a discharge, release, or disposal of a hazardous waste can be distinguished; (2) the amount of hazardous waste involved; (3) the degree of toxicity of the hazardous waste; (4) the degree of involvement of the parties in the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, or disposal of the hazardous waste; (5) the degree of care exercised by the parties with respect to the hazardous waste concerned, taking into account the characteristics of such hazardous waste; and (6) the degree of cooperation by the parties with Federal, State, or local officials to prevent any harm to the public health or the environment.”
3 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.