Central Delta Water Agency v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
306 F.3d 938 · 2002
Citation profile
63 federal appellate · 13 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 151 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2021 · most notably Clapper v. Amnesty International USA (2013), Clapper v. Amnesty International USA (2013)
63 federal appellate · 13 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 Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment · Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc. · Friends of the Earth Incorporateds v. Laidlaw Environmental Services Inc · City of Los Angeles v. Lyons
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 151 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a credible threat of harm is sufficient to constitute actual injury for standing purposes, whether or not a statutory violation has occurred.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]hen considering whether a prior action involved the same `nucleus of facts' for preclusion purposes, we must narrowly construe the scope of that earlier action.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Nippon Shinyaku Co. v. Iancu · United States v. State of Oregon, State of Washington, Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation v. Confederated Tribes of the Colville Indian Reservation Joseph Pakootas, Chairman of the Colville Business Council Wenatchi Constituent Tribe John St. Pierre, Spokesman for the Wenatchi Constituent Tribe“(1) whether rights or interests established in the prior judgment would be destroyed or impaired by prosecution of the second action; (2) whether substantially the same evidence is presented in the two actions; (3) whether the two suits involve infringement of the same right; and (4) whether the two suits arise out of the same transactional nucleus of facts.”
2 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.