Jv Peters Co Inc’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 9 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently September 2006 · most notably 51 Cal. 3d 807 - AIU Insurance v. Superior Court (1990), Bell Petroleum Services Inc v. Sequa Corporation (1993)
1 federal appellate · 9 district · 3 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
Relies on Federal Trade Commission v. Standard Oil Co. · 572 F. Supp. 802 - United States v. Chem-Dyne Corp. · 579 F. Supp. 823 - United States v. Northeastern Pharmaceutical & Chemical Co. · 544 F. Supp. 1135 - City of Philadelphia v. Stepan Chemical Co. · Walls
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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the owner and operator of a vessel of a facility, (2) any person who at the time of disposal of any hazardous substance owned or operated any facility at which such hazardous substances were disposed of, (3) any person who by contract, agreement, or otherwise arranged for disposal or treatment ... of hazardous substances owned or possessed by such person ... at any facility ... owned or operated by another party ..., (4) any person who accepts or accepted any hazardous substances for transport to disposal or treatment facilities ...”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“' "[T]he primary purpose of CERCLA is the prompt cleanup of hazardous waste sites.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) Covered persons; scope 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 (otherwise subject to the jurisdiction of the United States) or a facility, (2) any person who at the time of disposal of any hazardous substance owned or operated any facility at which such hazardous substances 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, or hazardous substances owned or possessed by such person, by any other party or entity, at any facility 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 or sites selected by such person, from which there is a release, or a threatened release which causes the incurrence of response costs, of a hazardous substance, 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; and (C) damages for injury to, destruction of, or loss of natural resources, including the reasonable costs of assessing such injury, destruction, or”
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.