Zands v. Nelson’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 5 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably New Jersey Turnpike Authority v. PPG Industries, Inc. (1999), Northington v. Marin (1996)
7 federal appellate · 5 district · 4 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 42 U.S.C. § 6972
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · 26 Cal. 3d 588 - Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories · United States v. Little Lake Misere Land Co. · 33 Cal. 2d 80 - Summers v. Tice · Cool Fuel, Inc. v. Connett
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he Court holds that owners and operators contribute to the contamination if the contamination is the direct result of activities related to the operation of a gas station; plaintiffs need not prove the specific cause of the contamination. Clearly individuals who own or operate gas stations are responsible for gasoline that leaks from the piping system or the gas tanks themselves. Indeed, the direct relationship between the leakage and the equipment owned and operated for use at the gas station is sufficient to prove the element of “contribution.” Of course, plaintiffs cannot prevail if they prove only that the defendants were the owners and operators of this gas station at some point in the past. Additionally, to hold these defendants responsible for the contamination, it is necessary to prove that the defendants were the owners and operators of the gas station when the gasoline leaked into the soil. The primary issue thus becomes: “When did the contamination occur?” ****** [Plaintiffs may only hold defendants liable for that portion of the contamination that occurred prior to the transfer of the property to plaintiffs.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) In general Except as provided in subsection (b) or (c) of this section, any person may commence a civil action on his own behalf— (B) against any person, including the United States and any other governmental instrumentality or agency, to the extent permitted by the eleventh amendment to the Constitution, and including any past or present generator, past or present transported, or past or present owner or operator of a treatment, storage, or disposal facility, who has contributed or who is contributing to the past or present handling, storage, treatment, transportation, or disposal of any solid or hazardous waste which may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to health or the environment[.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the word 'including' does not limit the definition of the word 'person'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Harold Cox
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.