Ashton v. Pierce’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently August 2004
6 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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. § 4801 · 42 U.S.C. § 4822 · 5 U.S.C. § 701
Relies on Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe · Consumer Product Safety Commission v. GTE Sylvania, Inc. · Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc. · Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Congress specifically rejected the narrow definition of 'immediate hazards' adopted by [the Department] in its regulations in favor of a broader definition intended to encompass 'tight' paint at least under some conditions.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ashton v. Pierce“to undertake further rulemaking to establish appropriate procedures for the elimination of lead-based paint hazards in federally associated public housing, including so-called tight paint.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ashton v. Pierce“identify the specific steps it will take to monitor and ensure compliance by local housing authorities with the revised lead-based paint elimination requirements.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ashton v. Pierce
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.