Lone Pine Steering Committee v. United States Environmental Protection Agency’s Empirical Analysis
777 F.2d 882 · 1985
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 12 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 64 later decisions — most recently February 2014 · most notably United States v. Northeastern Pharmaceutical & Chemical Co. (1986), Publicker Industries Inc. v. United States (1992)
21 federal appellate · 12 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 30 U.S.C. § 1201 (Abandoned Mine Reclamation Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 9601 (§ 101 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980) · 42 U.S.C. § 9604 (§ 104 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980) · 42 U.S.C. § 9605 (§ 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980) · 42 U.S.C. § 9606 (§ 106 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980)
Relies on Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner · Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn., Inc. · Block v. Community Nutrition Institute · Ewing v. Mytinger & Casselberry, Inc. · Taylor 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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“although not explicitly stated in the statute [CERCLA], we find in Sec. 9604 an implicit disapproval of pre-enforcement judicial review.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“provides an adequate opportunity for the alleged responsible parties to object to the cost and adequacy of response actions ... Continued monitoring of the EPA by the allegedly responsible parties and the prospect of a [§ 107] trial are adequate safeguards to insure that the agency gives serious consideration to objections and comments by the parties. The reimbursement trial will not be a pro forma proceeding but will permit presentation of adequate evidence for careful and exacting study by the court.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) an act of God; (2) an act of war; (3) an act or omission of a third party ...; or (4) any combination of the foregoing” caused the release or threat of release of the hazardous substance. 42 U.S.C. § 9607 (b). 7 . Appellants also argue that barring pre-enforcement judicial review constitutes a denial of due process because some of the creosote which will be removed from the site may be resold. "In property deprivation cases, due process does not require access to the courts before final administrative action.”
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.