Regan v. Cherry Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 16 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently September 2007 · most notably Dedham Water Co. v. Cumberland Farms Dairy, Inc. (1992), Juniper Development Group v. Kahn (1993)
7 federal appellate · 16 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
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 6901 (Federal Facility Compliance Act of 1992) · 42 U.S.C. § 6972 · 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) · 42 U.S.C. § 9612 (§ 112 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980) · 42 U.S.C. § 9659 (§ 310 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980)
Relies on City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc. · J. I. Case Co. v. Borak · Dedham Water Company v. Cumberland Farms Dairy Inc · Smith Development Corp. v. Bilow Enterprises, Inc. · United States v. Mottolo
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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“... [i]f Congress had intended to permit citizens seeking response costs to recover their attorney fees, it would simply have amended [§ 9607] to allow the recovery of these litigation costs. SARA [the Superfund Amendments and Reau-thorization Act of 1986] was a comprehensive overhaul of CERCLA. Therefore, it would have been a simply [sic] matter to amend [§ 9607] to allow recovery of attorney fees.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) Authority to bring civil actions. Except as provided in subsections (d) and (e) of this section and in section 9613(h) of this title (relating to timing of judicial review), any person may commence a civil action on his own behalf— (1) against any person ... who is alleged to be in violation of any standard, regulation, condition, requirement, or order which has become effective pursuant to this chapter.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he legislative history of [§ 9659] demonstrates that, rather than create a dupli-cative private action for response costs, Congress intended to establish a citizen suit provision through which the public could prod the executive branch into zealously enforcing hazardous waste laws. In addition, Congress intended that [§ 9659] establish private attorneys general to supplement administrative action and aid in attacking CERCLA violators. Congress amended CERCLA in 1986 through passage of SARA at a time when at least some of its members felt that CERCLA had been less than effective due to “misguided [EPA] policies.” H.R.Rep. No. 253(1), 99th Cong., 2nd Sess. 257 reprinted in 1986 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 2835, 2931 (Separate and Dissenting Views). Therefore, Congress enacted the Citizens Suit provision of SARA, which became [§ 9659] of CERCLA, to serve “as both a goad and an alternative to the [EPA’s] own inadequate enforcement efforts.” Id. at 290, reprinted in 1986 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 2965.”
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.