Coppola v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
2013
Citation profile
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 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · Ashcroft v. Iqbal · United States v. Bestfoods · Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. United States · Starr v. Baca
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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Coppola must allege facts that show a ‘disposal’ occurred ‘at the Well’ during Cal Water’s ownership or operation of the Well. That is, Coppola must allege that Cal Water discharged, deposited, injected, dumped, spilled, leaked, or placed PCE at or into the Well, such that the PCE at or in the Well could enter the environment. Further, given the nature of the term ‘disposal,’ there must be some indication that the PCE or the water containing the PCE was discarded by Cal Water.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Coppola v. Smith
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.