State Water Control Board v. Train’s Empirical Analysis
559 F.2d 921 · 1977
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently October 1994 · most notably Consolidation Coal Co. v. Costle (1979), Stoddard v. Western Carolina Regional Sewer Authority (1986)
26 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 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
Relies on Washington v. Davis · Caminetti v. United States · United States v. American Trucking Associations · Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer · Gulf Oil Corporation v. Copp Paving Company Inc
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““in cases where enforcement proceedings are brought ... the courts retain equitable discretion to determine whether and to what extent fines and injunctive sanctions should be imposed for violations brought about by good faith inability to comply with the deadline.” (Emphasis added.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Relying on Caminetti v. United States (1917) 242 U.S. 470, 485 , 37 S.Ct. 192 , [194] 61 L.Ed. 442 appellee and ami-cus curiae suggest that we need not even consider the legislative history cited by appellant because the text of the statute is unambiguous. But, whatever may have been the rule at the time of Caminetti and United States v. Missouri Pacific R. Co. (1929) 278 U.S. 269, 278 , 49 S.Ct. 133 , [136] 73 L.Ed. 322 (setting forth the standard formulation of the “plain meaning rule”), it is now settled that available extrinsic interpretive aids may not be disregarded even though the statutory language appears to have a “plain meaning” which does not lead to an absurd result. See, e.g., U. S. v. Amer. Trucking Ass ’ns (1940) 310 U.S. 534, 543-44 , 60 S.Ct. 1059, 1064 , 84 L.Ed. 1345 : When aid to construction of the meaning of words, as used in the statute, is available there certainly can be no “rule of law” which forbids its use, however clear the words may appear on “superficial examination.” Accord, Train v. Colorado Pub. Int. Research Group (1976) 426 U.S. 1 , 96 S.Ct. 1938 , 48 L.Ed.2d 434 (holding that court of appeals erred in relying on the “plain meaning” of a statute when the legislative history clearly indicated another meaning) and McMann v. United Air Lines, Inc. (4th Cir.1976) 542 F.2d 217, 221 . See also Murphy, Old Maxims Never Die: The “Plain Meaning Rule” and Statutory Interpretation in the “Modem”Federal Courts, 75 Col.L.Rev. 1299 (1975). However, the ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In Re Lepper
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.