Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 79 F.3d 1298 - Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Ass'n of the United States v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Ass'n of the United States v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation’s Empirical Analysis

79 F.3d 1298 · 1996

Citation profile

38
cited by 38 later decisions
1
states following
February 2013
most recently cited

20 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently February 2013 · most notably Adjustrite Systems, Inc. v. Gab Business Services, Inc. (1998), King v. Crossland Savings Bank (1997)

20 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions

200199620002010decided

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 Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner · Babbitt v. United Farm Workers National Union · Blanchette v. Connecticut General Insurance Corporations · Soberon 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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “real, substantial controversy between parties”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Although the ‘piggyback’ provision requires states to adopt standards identical to those in place in California to avoid preemption, there is no such identicality requirement for the mechanism employed to enforce those standards. Although the Clean Air Act requires an ‘enhanced’ inspection and maintenance program to reduce vehicle emissions, ... there is no requirement that the outpoints and other features of the program match those in California. Moreover, from a practical standpoint, it is understandable that Congress did not limit states in this way— enforcement techniques will necessarily vary from state to state.”
    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.