Gordon v. Norton’s Empirical Analysis
322 F.3d 1213 · 2003
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 2 district ·
Relationships
Applies 16 U.S.C. § 1531 (§ 2 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973) · 16 U.S.C. § 1540 (§ 11 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1491 · 5 U.S.C. § 704
Relies on Bennett v. Spear · Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co. · First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los Angeles · Eastern Enterprises v. Apfel · Franklin v. Massachusetts
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The ESA is designed to protect and conserve endangered and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they may be conserved.” (emphasis added)); see also N.M. Cattle Growers Ass'n v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 248 F.3d 1277 , 1282 (10th Cir.2001) (”
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.