Fund for Animals v. Babbitt’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
4 district ·
Relationships
Applies 16 U.S.C. § 669 (Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act) · 16 U.S.C. § 669E · 16 U.S.C. § 669G · 42 U.S.C. § 4321 (§ 2 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969) · 5 U.S.C. § 706
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“This is the final year in the five year plan to which the plaintiffs object. It is undisputed that the state initiated its planned hunt prior to receiving federal funding and has been solely responsible for its oversight and administration. It is undisputed that, absent the federal funding at issue, the state is authorized to continue, and will continue, to conduct the moose hunt. Because the state consistently has indicated it will continue the moose hunt, it is mere speculation that a favorable decision by this Court will in any way redress the plaintiffs’ alleged injuries.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.