Arizona v. Thomas’s Empirical Analysis
829 F.2d 834 · 1987
Citation profile
5 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 7409 · 42 U.S.C. § 7410 · 42 U.S.C. § 7502 · 42 U.S.C. § 7506 · 42 U.S.C. § 7607 · 5 U.S.C. § 706
Relies on United States v. Anderson · New Mexico Environmental Improvement Division v. Thomas · State of Arizona v. Lee M. Thomas, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency · Western Oil & Gas Ass'n v. United States 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“) 10 Arizona failed to correct deficiencies in the Pima and Maricopa CO SIPs for several years, however. On February 24, 1984, the EPA informed Arizona that the Pima and Maricopa County SIPs were not adequate to attain the CO NAAQS by December 31, 1982. The EPA warned that failure to submit and obtain approval of a”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. McCarthy v. Thomas“Arizona ... never had plans for Maricopa and Pima counties which appeared to meet all the requirements [of the CAA], much less plans which had been fully approved.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. McCarthy v. Thomas“as expeditiously as practicable but not later than December 31, 1987.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. McCarthy v. Thomas
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.