VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER Co. v. Costle’s Empirical Analysis
566 F.2d 446 · 1977
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently February 2016 · most notably Iowa League of Cities v. Environmental Protection Agency (2013), Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (1982)
17 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
Relies on E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Train · Hooker Chemicals & Plastics Corp. v. Train · American Frozen Food Institute v. Russell E. Train, Administrator, and Environmental Protection Agency, (Two Cases). Potato Processors of Idaho v. Russell E. Train, Administrator, and Environmental Protection Agency · E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Train · Sun Enterprises, Ltd. v. Train
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(t)he information contained in the Development Document shall be considered.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Appalachian Power Company, Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, Carolina Power & Light Company, Duke Power Company, Monongahela Power Company, Ohio Power Company, Potomac Edison Company, Potomac Electric Power Company, South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, Virginia Electric and Power Company, West Penn Power Company, Indiana & Michigan Electric Company, Kentucky Power Company, Boston Edison Company, Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company, Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, Columbia & Southern Ohio Electric Company, Commonwealth Edison Company, Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., Dayton Power & Light Company, the Detroit Edison Company, Florida Power & Light Company, Houston Lighting & Power Company, Illinois Power Company, Long Island Lighting Company, Arkansas Power & Light Company, Mississippi Power & Light Company, Louisiana Power & Light Company, New Orleans Public Service, Inc., Montaup Electric Company, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, New England Evsv. United States Environmental Protection Agency · Appalachian Power Co. v. Train“information contained in the Development Document”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Appalachian Power Company, Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, Carolina Power & Light Company, Duke Power Company, Monongahela Power Company, Ohio Power Company, Potomac Edison Company, Potomac Electric Power Company, South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, Virginia Electric and Power Company, West Penn Power Company, Indiana & Michigan Electric Company, Kentucky Power Company, Boston Edison Company, Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company, Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, Columbia & Southern Ohio Electric Company, Commonwealth Edison Company, Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., Dayton Power & Light Company, the Detroit Edison Company, Florida Power & Light Company, Houston Lighting & Power Company, Illinois Power Company, Long Island Lighting Company, Arkansas Power & Light Company, Mississippi Power & Light Company, Louisiana Power & Light Company, New Orleans Public Service, Inc., Montaup Electric Company, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, New England Evsv. United States Environmental Protection Agency · Appalachian Power Co. v. Train“The term “effluent limitation” means any restriction established by a State or the Administrator on quantities, rates, and concentrations of chemical, physical, biological, and other constituents which are discharged from point sources into navigable waters, the waters of the contiguous zone, or the ocean, including schedules of compliance.”
1 later decision 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.