Dedham Water Company v. Cumberland Farms Dairy Inc’s Empirical Analysis
889 F.2d 1146 · 1989
Citation profile
30 federal appellate · 31 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 147 later decisions — most recently October 2023 · most notably United States v. Alcan Aluminum Corp. (1992), Amoco Oil Company v. Borden Inc (1989)
30 federal appellate · 31 district · 10 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 33 U.S.C. § 1319 · 33 U.S.C. § 1321 · 42 U.S.C. § 6972 · 42 U.S.C. § 7412 · 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. § 9605 (§ 105 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)
Relies on Delaware v. New York · Hallstrom v. Tillamook County · New York v. Shore Realty Corp. · United States v. Monsanto Co. · 619 F. Supp. 162 - United States v. Conservation Chemical 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 147 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“consistent with the national contingency plan.”
14 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) [T]he owner and operator of a vessel (otherwise subject to the jurisdiction of the United States) 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, (3) [A]ny 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 owned or operated by another party or entity and containing such hazardous substances, and (4) [A]ny person who accepts or accepted any hazardous substances for transport to disposal or treatment facilities or sites selected by such person.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“any spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying, discharging, injecting, escaping, leaching, dumping, or disposing into the environment (including the abandonment or discarding of barrels, containers, and other closed receptacles containing any hazardous substance or pollutant or contaminant), but excludes (A) any release which results in exposure to persons solely within a workplace, with respect to a claim which such persons may assert against the employer of such persons, (B) emissions from the engine exhaust of a motor vehicle, rolling stock, aircraft, vessel, or pipeline pumping station engine. (C) release of source, byproduct, or special nuclear material from a nuclear incident, as those terms are defined in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 [ 42 U.S.C.A. § 2011 et seq.], if such release is subject to requirements with respect to financial protection established by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission under section 170 of such Act [ 42 U.S.C.A. § 2210 ], or, for the purposes of section 9604 of this title or any other response action, any release of source byproduct, or special nuclear :material from any processing site designated under section 7912(a)(1) or 7942(a) of this title, and (D) the normal application of fertilizer.”
3 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.