National Parks & Conservation Ass'n v. Babbitt’s Empirical Analysis
241 F.3d 722 · 2001
Citation profile
64 federal appellate · 50 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 181 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2025 · most notably Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms (2010), The Lands Council v. McNair (2008)
64 federal appellate · 50 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 Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council · Amoco Production Co. v. Village of Gambell · Greenpeace Action v. Franklin · Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project v. Blackwood · New Jersey v. New York
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 181 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) Impacts that may be both beneficial and adverse. A significant effect may exist even if the Federal agency believes that on balance the effect will be beneficial. (2) The degree to which the proposed action affects public health or safety. (3) Unique characteristics of the geographic area such as proximity to historic or cultural resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas. (4) The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be highly controversial. (5) The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks. (6) The degree to which the action may establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects or represents a decision in principle about a future consideration. (7) Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts.... (8) The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places or may cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources. (9) The degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species or its habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. (10) Whether the action threatens a violation of F”
17 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“an EIS must be prepared if substantial questions are raised as to whether a project ... may cause significant degradation to some human environmental factor. To trigger this requirement, a plaintiff need not show that significant effects will in fact occur [;] raising substantially questions whether a project may have a significant effect is sufficient.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a]n agency must generally prepare an EIS if the environmental effects of a proposed agency action are highly uncertain,”
7 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.