Bf Goodrich’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
30 federal appellate · 13 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 175 later decisions — most recently January 2022 · most notably Kronisch v. United States (1998), Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Aniero Concrete Co. (2005)
30 federal appellate · 13 district · 6 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
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Conley v. Gibson · Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. · Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
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) 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 release which causes the incurrence of response costs, of a hazardous substance[.]”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) the defendant is within one of the four categories of responsible parties enumerated in § 9607(a); (2) the ... site is a facility as defined in § 9601(9); (3) there is a release or threatened release of hazardous substances at the facility; (4) the plaintiff incurred costs responding to the release or threatened release; and (5) the costs and response actions conform to the national contingency plan.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the successor expressly or impliedly agrees to assume them; the transaction may be viewed as a de facto merger or consolidation; the successor is a “mere continuation” of the predecessor; or the transaction is fraudulent.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Michael Rego, in No. 98-1386 v. Arc Water Treatment Company of Pa., A/K/A Arc Water Treatment Company, A/K/A Arc Company Arc Water Treatment Company of Maryland, Inc. Michael Rego v. Arc Water Treatment Company of Pa., A/K/A Arc Water Treatment Company, A/K/A Arc Company Arc Water Treatment Company of Maryland, Inc. Arc Water Treatment Company of Maryland, Inc., in No. 98-1616 · 26 F. Supp. 2d 482 - Roll v. Tracor, Inc.
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.