Carlton v. Babbitt’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
13 district ·
Relationships
Applies 16 U.S.C. § 1531 (§ 2 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973) · 16 U.S.C. § 1532 (§ 3 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973) · 16 U.S.C. § 1533 (§ 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973) · 5 U.S.C. § 706
Relies on Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe · Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council · Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Astoria Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Solimino · Mack v. South Bay Beer Distributors, 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““As for the reliance on Mr. Harris’ article for the use of the four percent 5 mortality figure, it is hard to see how it can be justified. Mr. Harris’ work was based on a population of 448 grizzly bears, over ten times the size of the Selkirk population ... In the very article on which the FWS relied for its assertion, Mr. Harris explicitly stated that “the concept of sustainable yield is not independent of the size of the population in question.... ” The FWS unsuccessfully tries to parse Mr. Harris’ words to avoid the explicit limitations of his work. It argues that Mr. Harris’ article merely acknowledges that sustainable yield is “not independent” of the size of the population and does not state that its use is inappropriate. This attempt to make a semantic distinction is contrary to Mr. Harris’ statement in his master’s thesis-the document supporting the use of the four percent figure in the management plan-that his research could not be applied to smaller populations ... The FWS therefore was fully aware of the limitations on the use of the Harris figure with a population of 26 to 36 bears, making its use arbitrary and capricious.” Carlton v. Babbitt, at 109-10.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[the author's] understanding of his own article [was] particularly relevant and should have been considered in connection with this matter.” Id. (citing Esch, 876 F.2d at 991 ). Again, in Southwest Ctr. For Biological Diversity v. Norton, 2002 WL 1733618 , (D.D.C. July 29, 2002), the Court admitted a scientist’s declaration 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.