Kandra v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 6 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently June 2023 · most notably Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations v. United States Bureau of Reclamation (2005), Ecology Center, Inc. v. United States Forest Service (2006)
5 federal appellate · 6 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
Applies 16 U.S.C. § 1531 (§ 2 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973) · 16 U.S.C. § 1536 (§ 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973) · 16 U.S.C. § 1540 (§ 11 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973) · 42 U.S.C. § 4321 (§ 2 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969) · 42 U.S.C. § 4332 (§ 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969) · 43 U.S.C. § 371 (Northwestern New Mexico Rural Water Projects Act) · 5 U.S.C. § 706
Relies on Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe · Bennett v. Spear · United States v. Mitchell · Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council · Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“True, an RPA is defined as an alternative action[,] which is "consistent with the purposes of the action....” 50 C.F.R. § 402.02 ____[Ajgency actions taken pursuant to the Reclamation Act must comply with the requirements of the ESA. See Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153, 185 , 98 S.Ct. 2279 , 57 L.Ed.2d 117 (1978) (ESA obligations take "priority over the 'primary' missions” of federal agencies). Further, agency actions are subject to the government's duty to protect tribal resources. Reclamation's legal duty to operate the Project consistent with its ESA and tribal trust obligations does not render the RPAs inconsistent with the Project’s purpose. [Klamath Water Users Protective Ass’n v.] Patterson, 204 F.3d [1206,] 1213-14 [(9th Cir.1999) ].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1)violate Federal Defendants’ mandatory duty under Central Valley Project Improvement Act (“CVPIA”) § 3406(b)(23), Pub. L. No. 102-575, 106 Stat. 4600, because the planned flows exceed those permitted in the Record of Decision for Trinity River Mainstem Fishery Restoration (“TRROD”) called for in § 3406(b)(23); (2) violate CVPIA § 3411(a) and 43 U.S.C. § 383 because Federal Defendants failed to obtain an amendment to the approved place of use of the water that will be released pursuant to the flow augmentation plan; and (3) violate the National Environmental Policy Act, (“NEPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq., because Federal Defendants failed to engage in a sufficiently robust evaluation of the flow augmentation’s environmental impacts.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“In formulating its biological opinion, any reasonable and prudent alternatives, and any reasonable and prudent measures, the Service will use the best scientific and commercial data available and will give appropriate consideration to any beneficial actions taken by the Federal agency or applicant, including any actions taken prior to the initiation of consultation.”
1 later decision 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.