Missouri Mining, Inc. v. Interstate Commerce Commission’s Empirical Analysis
33 F.3d 980 · 1994
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently July 2023
8 federal appellate · 1 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
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 4332 (§ 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969) · 49 U.S.C. § 10901
Relies on Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council · Citizens Against Burlington, Inc. v. Busey · Goos v. Interstate Commerce Commission · City of New York v. United States Department of Transportation · Olmstead Citizens for a Better Community v. United States
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“), 42 U.S.C. Secs. 4321 -4370d, in granting the exemption and acted improperly in refusing to revoke the exemption. Because we find that the Commission did not violate NEPA and properly granted Burlington an exemption under section 10505, we deny the petition. I. 2 Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc. (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“) an exemption under 49 U.S.C. Sec. 10505 to construct and operate a seventeen-mile rail line. Petitioners argue that the Commission violated the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (”
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.