Violet v. Picillo’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 15 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently August 2004 · most notably United States v. Monsanto Co. (1988), Dedham Water Company v. Cumberland Farms Dairy Inc (1989)
6 federal appellate · 15 district · 2 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
Applies 33 U.S.C. § 1251 (Alternative Water Sources Act of 2000) · 33 U.S.C. § 1321 · 42 U.S.C. § 6901 (Federal Facility Compliance Act of 1992) · 42 U.S.C. § 6921 · 42 U.S.C. § 7412 · 42 U.S.C. § 7607 · 42 U.S.C. § 9601 (§ 101 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)
Relies on Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. · Costello v. United States · Utah Power Light Company v. United States No 202 United States · California v. Southland Royalty Co. · New York v. Shore Realty Corp.
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“State environmental authorities discovered this chemical wasteland [at Picillo Pig Farm] in 1977 after combustible chemicals caused a dramatic explosion and towering flames to rip through the waste disposal site. After the fire, state investigators discovered large trenches and pits filled with free-flowing, multicolored, pungent liquid wastes; they also excavated approximately 10,000 barrels and containers in varying states of decay containing hazardous chemical wastes.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“a) Notwithstanding any other provision or rule of law, and subject only to the defenses set forth in subsection (b) of this section— (1) the owner and operator of a vessel or facility, (2) any person who at the time of disposal of any hazardous substance owned or operated any facility at which hazardous wastes were disposed of, (3) any person who by contract, agreement, or otherwise arranged for disposal or treatment, or arranged with a transporter for transport for disposal or treatment, of a hazardous substances owned or possessed by such person, by any other party or entity, at any facility or incineration vessel owned or operated by another party or entity and containing such hazardous substances, and (4) any person who accepts or accepted any hazardous substances for transport to disposal or treatment facilities ... selected by such a person ... shall be liable for— (A) all costs of removal or remedial action incurred by the United States Government or a State not inconsistent with the national contingency plan; (B) any other necessary costs of response incurred by any other person consistent with the national contingency plan____”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(A) any building, structure, installation, equipment, pipe or pipeline (including any pipe into a sewer or publicly owned treatment works), well, pit, pond, lagoon, impoundment, ditch, landfill, storage container, motor vehicle, rolling stock, or aircraft, or (B) any site or area where a hazardous substance has been deposited, stored, disposed of, or placed, or otherwise come to be located; but does not include any consumer product in consumer use or any vessel....”
2 later decisions 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.