In Re Spring Valley Development’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
2 district · 34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently April 2020 · most notably Manor Development Corp. v. Conservation Commission (1980), In Re Maine Clean Fuels, Inc. (1973)
2 district · 34 state decisions
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 Louisville Gas & Electric Co. v. Coleman · Hall v. Geiger-Jones Co. · Ivanhoe Irrigation District v. McCracken · Borden's Farm Products Co. v. Baldwin · Continental Baking Co. v. Woodring
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The . . . [Board of Environmental Protection] may exercise the police power of the State to control the location of those developments substantially affecting local environment in order to insure that such developments will be located in a manner which will have a minimal adverse impact on the natural environment of their surroundings."”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“"The commission shall approve a development proposal whenever it finds that: " 1. Financial capacity. The developer has the financial capacity and technical ability to meet state air and water pollution control standards, and has made adequate provision for solid waste disposal, the control of offensive odors, and the securing and maintenance of sufficient and healthful water supplies. " 2. Traffic movement. The developer has made adequate provision for traffic movement of all types out of or into the development area. " 3. No adverse effect on the natural environment. The developer has made adequate provision for fitting the development harmoniously into the existing natural environment and that the development will not adversely affect existing uses, scenic character, or natural resources in the municipality or in neighboring municipalities. " 4. Soil types. The proposed development will be built on soil types which are suitable to the nature of the undertaking."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““Site Location Law ... is not directed toward promoting an orderly community growth . . . . It is not concerned with where a development takes place in general but only that the development takes place in a manner consistent with the needs of the public for a healthy environment. It did not grant the Commission the authority to determine where the location of a development must be but rather it gave the Commission authority to measure the proposal and location against statutory standards and to apply reasonable terms and conditions which the proposal must meet in order that it may be ‘located in a manner which will have a minimal adverse impact on the natural environment.’ ””
2 later decisions 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.