Kamp v. Hernandez’s Empirical Analysis
752 F.2d 1444 · 1985
Citation profile
18 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently March 2024 · most notably Kamp v. Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. (1985), Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Thomas (1988)
18 federal appellate ·
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. § 7407 · 42 U.S.C. § 7409 · 42 U.S.C. § 7410 · 42 U.S.C. § 7413 · 42 U.S.C. § 7419 · 42 U.S.C. § 7423 · 42 U.S.C. § 7502 · 42 U.S.C. § 7602
Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Udall v. Tallman · California State Board of Equalization v. Western Marina Corp. · Train v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · DelCostello v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“when the challenge to agency action [which would otherwise be within the district court's jurisdiction] is 'embedded in a challenge to the validity of an implementation plan,' jurisdiction lies in the circuit court reviewing the implementation plan.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Northwest Food Processors Association, a Nonprofit Association Tualatin Valley Fruit Marketing, Inc., an Oregon Corporation American Frozen Food Institute, a Nonprofit Association James M. Love, Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross-Appellees, and Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General for the State of Oregon, on Behalf of the People of the State of Oregon, Plaintiff-Intervenor v. William K. Reilly, Administrator, David Alvarez Alicia Prieto Cristina Esquivel National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides Northwest Coalition Against Pesticides Natural Resources Defense Council United Farmworkers Union of Washington State Pineros Y Campesinos Unidos Del Noroeste, Inc., Defendants-Intervenors-Appellees-Cross-Appellants. American Frozen Food Institute, a Nonprofit Association v. United States Environmental Protection Agency William K. Reilly, Administrator · Northwest Food Processors Ass'n v. Reilly“... the committee has made clear that constant or continuous means of reducing emissions must be used.... By the same token, intermittent or supplemental controls or other temporary, periodic, or limited systems of control would not be permitted.... 33 H.R.Rep. No. 294, 95th Cong. 1st Sess. 92 (1977), reprinted in 1977 U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News 1077, 1170. Accord id. at 6, reprinted in 1977 U.S.Cong. & Ad.News at 1084. EPA's definition of”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Kamp v. Hernandez“The implementation plan involved in this case has nothing to do with the concerns of Part D: its objective is to bring existing sources of S02 pollution into compliance with the NAAQSs, not to allow for the construction of new major sources of emissions.”
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.