Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 851 F.2d 86 - Smith Land Improvement Corporation 87-5740 v. Celotex Corporation Smith Land & Improvement Corporation 87-5741

Smith Land Improvement Corporation 87-5740 v. Celotex Corporation Smith Land & Improvement Corporation 87-5741’s Empirical Analysis

851 F.2d 86 · 1988

Citation profile

175
cited by 175 later decisions
6
states following
April 2018
most recently cited

38 federal appellate · 36 district · 8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 175 later decisions — most recently April 2018 · most notably Amoco Oil Company v. Borden Inc (1989), Redwing Carriers, Inc. v. Saraland Apartments (1996)

38 federal appellate · 36 district · 8 state decisions

12401988199020002010decided

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. § 9607 (§ 107 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980) · 42 U.S.C. § 9613 (§ 113 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980)

Relies on In re Disbarment of Sabiston · United States v. Northeastern Pharmaceutical & Chemical Co. · Tulane Hotel Investors Ltd. Partnership v. First Financial Bank, FSB · Mardan Corporation v. Cgc Music Ltd · United States v. Price

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

  1. “Congressional intent supports the conclusion that, when choosing between the taxpayers or a successor corporation, the successor should bear the cost. Benefits from use of the pollutant as well as savings resulting from the failure to use non-hazardous disposal methods inured to the original corporation, its successors, and their respective stockholders and accrued only indirectly, if at all, to the general public.”
    12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[i]n resolving the successor liability issues here, the district court must consider national uniformity,”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[i]n resolving contribution claims, the court may allocate response costs among liable parties using such equitable factors as the court determines are appropriate....”
    5 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.