NL Industries, Inc. v. Kaplan’s Empirical Analysis
792 F.2d 896 · 1986
Citation profile
47 federal appellate · 50 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 361 later decisions — most recently July 2024 · most notably McGlinchy v. Shell Chemical Co. (1988), Carson Harbor Village, Ltd. v. Unocal Corp. (2000)
47 federal appellate · 50 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 42 U.S.C. § 9607 (§ 107 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980)
Relies on North Star International v. Arizona Corp. Commission · Wickland Oil Terminals v. Asarco, Inc. · Halet ex rel. Halet v. Wend Investment Co. · Guillory v. County of Orange
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 361 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“appears to a certainty that [Parez] would be entitled to no relief under any state of facts that could be proved.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) Covered persons; ... Notwithstanding any other provision or rule of law, and subject only to the defenses set forth in subsection (b) of this section— (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, and (4) any person who accepts or accepted any hazardous substances for transport to disposal or treatment facilities, incineration vessels 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— (B) any ... necessary costs of response incurred by any ... person consistent with the national contingency plan. (b) Defenses There shall be no liability under subsection (a) of this section for a person otherwise liable who can establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the release or threat of release of a hazardous substance and the damages resulting therefrom were caused solely by— (3) an act or omission of a third party other than an employee or agent of the defendant, ... if the defendant establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that (a) he exercised due care with respect to the hazardous substance concerned, ... and (b) he took precautions against foreseeable acts or omissions of any such third party and the consequences that could foreseeably result from such acts or omissions.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“of response within the meaning of section 107(a), and that Dow, Shell, and the federal defendants owned or operated the Site at the time that hazardous substances were deposited there. Despite these allegations, the district court dismissed Cadillac Fairview's suit against the private defendants for failure to state a claim under section 107(a). 9 The district judge based his decision to dismiss Cadillac Fairview's damages claims on its failure to await governmental action with respect to the Site before bringing suit. The court held that in order for a private response action to be”
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.