Dedham Water Company v. Cumberland Farms Dairy Inc’s Empirical Analysis
805 F.2d 1074 · 1986
Citation profile
58 federal appellate · 45 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 190 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2017 · most notably Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. United States (2009), United States v. Monsanto Co. (1988)
58 federal appellate · 45 district · 7 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. § 1331 · 42 U.S.C. § 6972 · 42 U.S.C. § 9601 (§ 101 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980) · 42 U.S.C. § 9607 (§ 107 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980) · 42 U.S.C. § 9611 (§ 111 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980) · 42 U.S.C. § 9612 (§ 112 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980)
Relies on Califano v. Sanders · Bradley v. School Board of City of Richmond · Coastal Steel Corp. v. Wheelabrator-Frye, Inc. · New York v. Shore Realty Corp. · Andrus v. Charlestone Stone Products Co.
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 190 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the owner and operator of a vessel or a facility, (2) any person 1 who at the time of disposal of any hazardous substance owned or operated any facility at which such hazardous substances were disposed of, (3) any person who by contract, agreement, or otherwise arranged for disposal or treatment, or arranged with a transporter for transport for disposal, or treatment, of hazardous substances owned or possessed by such person, by any other party or entity, at any facility or incineration vessel owned or operated by another party or entity and containing such hazardous substances, 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.... ””
19 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“First, Congress intended that the federal government be immediately given the tools necessary for a prompt and effective response to the problems of national magnitude resulting from hazardous waste disposal. Second, Congress intended that those responsible for problems caused by the disposal of chemical poisons bear the costs and responsibility for remedying the harmful conditions they created.”
17 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“CERCLA is essentially a remedial statute designed by Congress to protect and preserve public health and the environment.”
4 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.