La Raza Unida v. Volpe’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 6 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently June 2004 · most notably Gage v. United States Atomic Energy Commission (1973), Jones v. District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency (1974)
24 federal appellate · 6 district · 2 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
Applies 23 U.S.C. § 103 · 23 U.S.C. § 106 · 23 U.S.C. § 128 · 23 U.S.C. § 138 · 23 U.S.C. § 501 · 23 U.S.C. § 502 (Intelligent Transportation Systems Act of 1998)
Relies on Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe · Ex Parte: Edward T Young · Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corp. · Wickard v. Filburn · Allied Chemical & Alkali Workers v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co.
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a]ny project that seeks even the possible protection and assistance of the federal government must fall within the statutes and regulations.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“1. It is hereby ordered, adjudged, and decreed, that pending the further Order of the Court, state defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all persons in active concert or participation with them or any of them are, each and all, hereby restrained and enjoined from: (a) Acquiring any further real property in the Cities of Hayward, Union City, and Fremont, California, for right-of-way for the Route 238 Project; and (b) Attempting to remove, threatening to remove, or acting to remove (by initiating contacts or making solicited or unsolicited offers or otherwise) any resident of premises located on or near proposed right-of-way for the Route 238 Project; and (c) Undertaking any other actions whatsoever in connection with the Route 238 Project that would materially affect the environment. 2. It is further hereby ordered, adjudged and decreed, that commencing immediately, and thereafter until the further order of this Court, defendant Yolpe, his officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all persons in active concert with them or any of them, each and all, are hereby restrained and enjoined from continuing to accord or to accord any approval to the Route 238 Project or plans, maps, or other documents connected therewith. 3. It is further hereby ordered, adjudged and decreed, that no person restrained and enjoined by this Preliminary Injunction shall undertake to avoid compliance by any indirection. 4. Any person enjoined by this Prelimina”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“It does little good to shut the barn doors after all the horses have run away. If the federal statutes and regulations are to supply any protection at all it must be prior to the time the residents have left and the deleterious effects to the environment have taken place. All the protections that Congress sought to establish would be futile gestures were a state able to ignore the spirit (and letter) of the various acts and regulations until it actually receives federal funds. Given the realities of actual highway displacement and construction, the statutes and regulations must apply immediately or their purpose will be frustrated.”
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.