United States v. Fleet Factors Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
901 F.2d 1550 · 1990
Citation profile
37 federal appellate · 9 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 102 later decisions — most recently December 2017 · most notably Publicker Industries Inc. v. United States (1992), Redwing Carriers, Inc. v. Saraland Apartments (1996)
37 federal appellate · 9 district · 5 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 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 28 U.S.C. § 46 · 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)
Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Carnegie v. United States · United States v. Stanley · United States v. First City National Bank of Houston · United States v. Northeastern Pharmaceutical & 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 102 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a person, who, without participating in the management of a vessel or facility, holds indicia of ownership primarily to protect his security interest in the vessel or facility.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. United States v. P.R. Indus. Dev. Co. · In Re Bergsoe Metal Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, Ssn I.D. No. 93-0174023, Debtor, David A. Hill, Trustee for Bergsoe Metal Corporation and United States National Bank of Oregon, a National Banking Association v. The East Asiatic Company, Ltd. The East Asiatic Company, Inc. Heidelberg Eastern, Inc., Defendants-Counterclaimants/appellants v. Port of St. Helens, Counterdefendant/appellee“if its involvement with the management of the facility is sufficiently broad to support the inference that it could affect hazardous waste disposal decisions if it so chose”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) the owner and operator of a vessel or a facility, - (2) any 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) any 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 or incineration vessel owned or operated by another party or entity and containing such hazardous substances, and (4) any person who accepts or accepted any hazardous substances for transport to disposal or treatment facilities, incineration vessels or sites selected by such person, from which there is a release, or a threatened released]”
4 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.