Conner v. Aerovox, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
730 F.2d 835 · 1984
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently July 2014
10 federal appellate · 3 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 15 U.S.C. § 2601 (§ 2 of the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976) · 15 U.S.C. § 2605 (§ 6 of the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976) · 15 U.S.C. § 2620 (§ 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976) · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1333 · 33 U.S.C. § 1251 (Alternative Water Sources Act of 2000) · 33 U.S.C. § 1321 · 33 U.S.C. § 1365
Relies on Middlesex County Sewerage Authority v. National Sea Clammers Assn. · Wilburn Boat Company v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Company · Illinois v. City of Milwaukee · Foremost Insurance v. Richardson · City of Milwaukee v. Illinois
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[FN10]. Plaintiffs have not contended that any part of their alleged injuries were suffered due to discharges prior to enactment of the 1972 Amendments. We therefore do not consider whether FWPCA displaces the federal common law of nuisance remedy for discharges of pollutants into navigable waters prior to 1972. See Outboard Marine, 680 F.2d at 476-81 (concluding that FWPCA displaced federal common-law nuisance claim for pre-1972 discharges).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[FN6]. The plaintiffs have not pressed a maritime tort under a negligence theory before this court. See Oswego, 664 F.2d at 334, 343-44. We do not consider whether such a claim is appropriate where intentional discharge of pollution into public waters is at issue, nor whether a negligence action for injuries due to water pollution still sounds in maritime tort after FWPCA's enactment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) Nothing in this section shall affect or modify in any way the obligations of any owner or operator of any vessel ... to any person or agency under any provision of law for damages to any publicly owned or privately owned property resulting from a discharge of any oil or hazardous substance____”
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.