Strahan v. Coxe’s Empirical Analysis
127 F.3d 155 · 1997
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 33 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 81 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably Tokyo Marine and Fire Insurance Co Ltd v. Perez & Cia De Puerto Rico Inc (1998), National Association of Home Builders v. A Norton
23 federal appellate · 33 district ·
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 Haines v. Kerner · Ex Parte: Edward T Young · Edelman v. Jordan · Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida · Cipollone v. Liggett Group, 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 81 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a) “Harass” has been further defined to mean an intentional or negligent act or omission which creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering. 50 C.F.R. § 17.3 . b) “Harm” has been further defined to mean “actually kill [ ] or injure[ ]” which includes significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“balance of hardships and the public interest tips heavily in favor of protected species”) (citation and quotation marks omitted). But see Animal Welfare Institute v. Martin, 623 F.3d 19, 27 (1st Cir.2010) (”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[N]ot only prohibits the acts of those parties that directly exact the taking, but also bans those acts of a third party that bring about the acts exacting a taking. We believe that, contrary to the defendants’ argument on appeal, the district court properly found that a governmental third party pursuant to whose authority an actor directly exacts a taking of an endangered species may be deemed to have violated the provisions of the ESA.”
2 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.