Bell v. Cheswick Generating Station’s Empirical Analysis
734 F.3d 188 · 2013
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 33 U.S.C. § 1251 (Alternative Water Sources Act of 2000) · 33 U.S.C. § 1365 · 33 U.S.C. § 1370 · 42 U.S.C. § 7401 (Air Quality Act of 1967) · 42 U.S.C. § 7410 · 42 U.S.C. § 7416
Relies on Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr · Japan Whaling Ass'n v. American Cetacean Society · City of Milwaukee v. Illinois · International Paper Co. v. Ouellette · Free v. Bland
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Except as otherwise provided ... nothing in this chapter shall preclude or deny the right of any State or political subdivision thereof to adopt or enforce (1) any standard or limitation respecting emissions of air pollutants or (2) any requirement respecting control or' abatement of air pollution....”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[n]othing in this section shall restrict any right which any person (or class of persons) may have under any statute or common law to seek enforcement of any emission standard or limitation or to seek any other relief.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Laurie Freeman, Sharon Mockmore, Beccy Boysel, Gary D. Boysel, Linda L. Goreham, Gary R. Goreham, Kelcey Brackett, and Bobbie Lynn Weatherman v. Grain Processing Corporation · In Re County Commissioners of Boulder County and City of Boulder, Plaintiffs: v. Suncor Energy USA, Inc.; Suncor Energy Sales, Inc.; Suncor Energy Inc.; and Exxon Mobil Corporation, Defendants:“[T]here is little basis for distinguishing the Clean Air Act from the Clean Water Act — the two statutes feature nearly identical savings clauses and employ similar ‘cooperative federalism’ structures. Both Acts establish a regulatory scheme through which source states, and not affected states, play the primary role in developing the regulations- by which a particular source will be bound. Both Acts contain citizen suit provisions Which allow individuals to bring suit to enforce their terms under certain circumstances, and both Acts contain two savings clauses: one located within the citizen suit provision which focuses on the rights of individuals to sue, and a second independent savings clause which focuses on states’ rights.”
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.