Cisco v. United States ex rel. Environmental Protection Agency’s Empirical Analysis
768 F.2d 788 · 1985
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 7 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently July 2016 · most notably Williams v. United States (1995), Konizeski v. Livermore Labs (1987)
24 federal appellate · 7 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 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2680 · 42 U.S.C. § 6902 · 42 U.S.C. § 6928 · 42 U.S.C. § 9604 (§ 104 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980)
Relies on United States v. S.A. Empresa De Viacao Aerea Rio Grandense · United States v. Muniz · General Public Utilities Corp. v. United States
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“When an agency makes decisions regarding the supervision of private individuals, it is exercising discretionary regulatory authority of the most basic kind. Decisions as to the manner of enforcing regulations directly affect the feasibility and practicality of the Government’s regulatory program; such decisions require the agency to establish priorities for the accomplishment of its policy objectives by balancing the objectives sought to be obtained against such practical considerations as staffing and funding_ Judicial intervention in such decisionmaking through private tort suits would require the courts to “second-guess” the political, social, and economic judgments of an agency exercising its regulatory function. It was precisely this sort of judicial intervention in policymaking that the discretionary function exception was designed to prevent.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“in deciding not to warn Cisco about the contaminated landfill and in deciding not to remove the contaminated dirt from the landfill, the EPA made political, social and economic judgments pursuant to its grant of authority. Cisco may not challenge those judgments under the FTCA because they fall within the discretionary function exception of 28 U.S.C. § 2680 (a).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.