Greenpeace Inc’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district ·

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

1. “[Wjhen Greenpeace alleged in its complaint that the test burn and post-test burn would present an imminent and substantial endangerment, it was asking the district court to review and enjoin the EPA administrator’s permit decision .... If Greenpeace was prepared to demonstrate that the U.S. EPA disregarded an imminent hazard at the time it issued the permit for the test burn and post-test burn period, 42 U.S.C. § 6976 (b) required Greenpeace to bring its appeal directly to this court within ninety days. Because that was not done, Greenpeace forfeited any opportunity for judicial review of the claims that could have been raised by appealing the RCRA permit amendments in 1992.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 33 F. Supp. 3d 791 - Little v. Louisville Gas & Electric Co.

2. “Congress believed that by giving citizens themselves the power to enforce [RCRA] provisions by suing violators directly, they could speed compliance with environmental laws, as well as put pressure upon a government that was unable or unwilling to enforce such laws itself.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Harold Cox

3. “permit, standard, regulation, condition, requirement, prohibition, or order which has become effective pursuant to [the RCRA],”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Harold Cox