Torwico Electronics, Inc. v. New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection’s Empirical Analysis
8 F.3d 146 · 1993
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently May 2020 · most notably Rederford v. US Airways, Inc. (2009), AM International Inc. v. Datacard Corp. (1997)
13 federal appellate · 6 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
Relies on Ohio v. Kovacs · Penn Terra Ltd. v. Department of Environmental Resources · Chateaugay Corporation v. Ltv Corporation Ltv State of New York · In the Matter of Cmc Heartland Partners, Debtor
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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The state here found that the seepage pit was a continuing problem that was leaking hazardous material into the surrounding environment. Thus, the state is not asserting a “repackaged claim for damages”; rather there is an ongoing and continuing threat and ... an obligation on the part of the debtor to “ameliorate ongoing pollution emanating from accumulated wastes” ... The state has no “right to payment” here. What it has is a right to force the debtor to comply with applicable environmental laws by remedying an existing hazard.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A]n order to clean up a site, to the extent that it imposes obligations distinct from any obligation to stop or ameliorate ongoing pollution, is a 'claim' if the creditor obtaining the order had the option, which CERCLA confers, to do the cleanup work itself and sue for response costs, thereby converting the injunction into a monetary obligation.”). 84 . Id. at 469. 85 . See id. 86 . See id. 87 . See id. 88 . Id. at 470. 89 . Id. at 471. 90 . Appellant Brief of Mark IV Industries, Inc. (”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(A) right to payment ... or (B) right to an equitable remedy for breach of performance if such breach gives rise to a right to payment, whether or not such right to an equitable remedy is reduced to judgment, fixed, contingent, matured, unmatured, disputed, undisputed, secured, or unsecured[.]””
3 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.