General Electric Co. v. Jackson’s Empirical Analysis
610 F.3d 110 · 2010
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 40 district · 3 state decisions
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2462 · 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. § 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) · 8 U.S.C. § 1160 (§ 210 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Mathews v. Eldridge · Ex Parte: Edward T Young · Paul v. Davis
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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The first inquiry in every [procedural] due process challenge is whether the plaintiff has been deprived of a protected interest in liberty or property. Only after finding the deprivation of a protected interest do we look to see if the [government's] procedures comport with due process.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Once EPA issues a UAO, the recipient PRP has two choices. It may comply and, after completing the cleanup, seek reimbursement from EPA. 42 U.S.C. § 9606 (b)(2)(A). If EPA refuses reimbursement, the PRP may sue the agency in federal district court to recover its costs on the grounds that (1) it was not liable for the cleanup, id. § 9606(b)(2)(B)(C); or (2) it was liable but EPA’s selected response action (or some portion thereof) was “arbitrary and capricious or ... otherwise not in accordance with law,” id. § 9606(b)(2)(D). Alternatively, the PRP may refuse to comply with the UAO, in which case EPA may either bring an action in federal district court to enforce the UAO against the noncomplying PRP, id. § 9606(b)(1), or clean the site itself and then sue the PRP to recover its costs, id. § 9607(c)(3).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“No Federal court shall have jurisdiction ... to review any challenges to removal or remedial action ... in any action except one of the following: .... (2) An action to enforce an order issued under section 9606(a) of this title or to recover a penalty for violation of such order.”
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.