Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 79 F.3d 248 - Schiavone v. Pearce

Schiavone v. Pearce’s Empirical Analysis

79 F.3d 248 · 1996

Citation profile

54
cited by 54 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
May 2017
most recently cited

21 federal appellate · 10 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 54 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2017 · most notably United States v. Bestfoods (1998), Redwing Carriers, Inc. v. Saraland Apartments (1996)

21 federal appellate · 10 district ·

300199620002010decided

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 Watson v. United States · Rufo v. Inmates of the Suffolk County Jail · Keene Corp. v. United States · Gant v. United States · In re Disbarment of Hurley

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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[f]irst, assuring that those responsible for any damage, environmental harm, or injury from chemical poisons bear the costs of their actions.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Observing that 'owner' liability and 'operator' liability denote two separate concepts, courts stress the disjunctive character of CERCLA liability.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “(a) Any person, firm, corporation ... which contains or removes or otherwise mitigates the effects of ... hazardous wastes resulting from any discharge, spillage, uncontrolled loss, seepage or filtration of such substance or material or waste shall be entitled to reimbursement from any person, firm or corporation for the reasonable costs expended for such containment, removal, or mitigation, if such ... hazardous wastes pollution or contamination or other emergency resulted from the negligence or other actions of such person, firm or corporation....”
    2 later decisions 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.