United States v. Dart Industries, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
847 F.2d 144 · 1988
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently June 2015 · most notably Edward Hines Lumber Company v. Vulcan Materials Company, Osmose Wood Preserving, Inc. (1988), Fmc Corporation v. United States Department of Commerce Ronald Brown, Secretary of Commerce, in His Official Capacity United States of America (1994)
9 federal appellate · 4 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
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 9601 (§ 101 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980) · 42 U.S.C. § 9602 (§ 102 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)
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“DHEC approved or disapproved applications to store wastes at Fort Lawn, inspected the site, and required proper transportation of the wastes delivered to Fort Lawn. However, there is no allegation that DHEC went beyond this governmental supervision and directly managed Carolawn's employees or finances at the Fort Lawn Site. Thus, this court finds that DHEC is not an owner or operator under § 9601(20)(A)(iii). * * * * * * As with the claim under § 9601(20)(A)(iii) these allegations that DHEC did not properly monitor the site or facilitate the cleanup fail to characterize DHEC as an owner or operator. The generators are unable to specify any `hands on' activities by DHEC that contributed to the release of hazardous wastes. The district court appropriately described DHEC's activities as merely `a series of regulatory action.' * * * * * * This court does not dispute that DHEC may have inadequately enforced the state environmental regulations. However, such unfortunate deficiencies do not constitute ownership or control as defined in § 9607; thus DHEC is not liable as an owner or operator under § 9607.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]here is no allegation that DHEC went beyond this governmental supervision and directly managed Carolawn’s employees of finances at the Fort Lawn site ... The generators are unable to specify any “hands on” activities by DHEC that contributed to the release of hazardous wastes. The district court appropriately described DHEC’s activities as merely “a series of regulatory actions.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) [T]he [current] owner and operator of a vessel or a facility, (2) [A]ny person who at the time of disposal of any hazardous substance owned or operated any facility at which such hazardous substances were disposed of”
2 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.