Barnes v. Koppers, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
534 F.3d 357 · 2008
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 9601 (§ 101 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980) · 42 U.S.C. § 9604 (§ 104 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. § 9651 (§ 301 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980) · 42 U.S.C. § 9658 (§ 309 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980)
Relies on Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr · Silkwood v. Corporation · Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC · Sorenson v. Secretary of the Treasury · First United Methodist Church of Hyattsville v. United States Gypsum Co.
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In the case of any action brought under State law for personal injury, or property damages, which are caused or contributed to by exposure to any hazardous substance, or pollutant or contaminant, released into the environment from a facility, if the applicable limitations period for such action (as specified in the State statute of limitations or under common law) provides a commencement date which is earlier than the federally required commencement date, such period shall commence at the federally required commencement date in lieu of the date specified in such State statute.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The latent discovery statute differs markedly from Mississippi’s limitations provision governing medical malpractice suits, which commences only when the negligent act “shall or with reasonable diligence might have been first known or discovered ...” That the medical malpractice provision refers to discovery of the “neglect” as opposed to the “injury” evidence the legislature’s ability to craft a discovery rule like that advocated by [the plaintiff], and reinforces the limited scope of the latent discovery provision.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“discharge pursuant to a permit issued under any of a variety of federal environmental laws”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.