Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 810 F.2d 493 - American Cyanamid Co. v. Agency

American Cyanamid Co. v. Agency’s Empirical Analysis

810 F.2d 493 · 1987

Citation profile

24
cited by 24 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
November 2013
most recently cited

17 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2013

17 federal appellate · 1 district ·

1501987199020002010decided

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. § 7401 (Air Quality Act of 1967) · 42 U.S.C. § 7407 · 42 U.S.C. § 7409 · 42 U.S.C. § 7410 · 42 U.S.C. § 7420 · 42 U.S.C. § 7602 · 42 U.S.C. § 7604 · 42 U.S.C. § 7607

Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe · Train v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Quarles v. St. Clair · Connecticut v. Environmental Protection Agency

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

  1. “the importance of the EPA acting, not for the benefit of American Cyanamid, but for the benefit of the State of Louisiana which is by statute designated to play a significant cooperating role with the EPA.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The EPA’s interpretation of § 7420 exposes ... companies to the unacceptable risk that, contrary to state policy decisions authorized under the Act, they will be fined because of delays within the EPA.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “when the EPA issues its Notice of Noncompliance more than four months after a state proposes a SIP revision, the EPA may not commence Sec. 7420 proceedings until it rejects the proposed revision.”
    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.