Riverhawks v. Zepeda’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
2 district ·
Relationships
Applies 16 U.S.C. § 1133 · 16 U.S.C. § 1271 (Arkansas Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1992) · 16 U.S.C. § 1273 · 16 U.S.C. § 1274 · 16 U.S.C. § 1600 (Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974) · 16 U.S.C. § 1604 · 42 U.S.C. § 4331 (§ 101 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969) · 42 U.S.C. § 4332 (§ 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969)
Relies on Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe · Allen v. Wright · Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation · Bennett v. Spear
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“administered in such manner as to protect and enhance the values which caused it to be included in said system without, insofar as is consistent therewith, limiting other uses that do not substantially interfere with public use and enjoyment of these values.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“plaintiffs provide no persuasive authority that the [CMP's] requirement [that "[a] recreation plan will be prepared for the river area”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“plaintiffs provide no persuasive authority that the [CMP's] requirement [that”
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.