Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 33 F.3d 1072 - Smith v. U.S. Forest Service

Smith v. U.S. Forest Service’s Empirical Analysis

33 F.3d 1072 · 1994

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
March 2019
most recently cited

10 federal appellate · 9 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently March 2019

10 federal appellate · 9 district ·

100199420002010decided

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

Applies 16 U.S.C. § 1132 · 42 U.S.C. § 4332 (§ 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969)

Relies on Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe · Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council · National Union Fire Insurance v. Helfand · Quantum Chemical Corp. v. Pratt · Universal Cooperatives, Inc. v. FCX, 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The parties have expended considerable effort arguing about whether the agency must prepare a site-specific EIS. In National Audubon [Soc’y v. U.S. Forest Service, 4 F.3d 832 (9th Cir.1993)], we remanded for consideration of whether the agency’s decision not to prepare an EIS in connection with a timber sale on inventoried land was arbitrary and capricious. National Audubon, 4 F.3d at 837-41. Implicit in that remand was our conclusion that an EIS may not be per se required under such circumstances. We leave to the agency the decision of how best to comply with NEPA and its implementing regulations, and hold only that the NEPA documents before us are insufficient.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “a failure to challenge factual determinations made in the Forest Plan EIS does not prevent [an individual] from challenging the sufficiency of the agency's NEPA disclosure at the implementation stage”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “the decision to harvest timber in a 5,000 acre roadless area is environmentally significant”
    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.