Anderson v. Evans’s Empirical Analysis
350 F.3d 815 · 2002
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 16 U.S.C. § 1361 (§ 2 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972) · 16 U.S.C. § 1362 (§ 3 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972) · 16 U.S.C. § 1371 (§ 101 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972) · 16 U.S.C. § 1372 (§ 102 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972) · 16 U.S.C. § 1378 (§ 108 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972) · 16 U.S.C. § 1431 (Marine Sanctuaries Amendments of 1984) · 16 U.S.C. § 1531 (§ 2 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973) · 16 U.S.C. § 668
Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council · Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council · Washington v. Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Assn. · Ohio v. Gallagher
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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[it] is forbidden to take or kill gray whales except when the meat and products of such whales are to be used exclusively for local consumption by the aborigines. " 62 Stat. at 1723 (emphasis added). The articulation of the aboriginal subsistence exception has varied in ICRW Schedules over time. The precise reach of the exception has remained unclear. See, e.g., Brian Trevor Hodges, The Cracking Facade of the International Whaling Commission as an Institution of International Law: Norwegian Small-Type Whaling and the Aboriginal Subsistence Exemption, 15 J. Envtl. L. & Litig. 295, 304-05 (2000); Nancy C. Doubleday, Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling: The Right of Inuit to Hunt Whales and Implications for International Environmental Law, 17 Denv. J. Int'l L. & Pol'y 373, 384-94 (1989). 8 To "take”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Anderson v. Evans“formula, however, does not provide a ready answer in this case, which involves now-protected marine mammals rather than salmon and other fish available, within limits, for fishing. The question presented to us is not how whaling rights can be fairly apportioned between Indians and non-Indians. Rather, the Tribe asserts a treaty right that would give the Tribe the exclusive ability to hunt whales free from the regulatory scheme of the MMPA. Just as treaty fisherman are not permitted to”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Anderson v. Evans“Relatively little is known about how individuals choose feeding grounds throughout their lives.... It is plausible that females may learn their migration route and preferred feeding areas from their mothers.... A summer hunt that is localized and very coastal has the potential to adversely affect such localized feeding groups and could lead to distributional changes and local extirpation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Anderson v. Evans
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.