Anderson v. Evans’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 4 district ·
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) Impacts that may be both beneficial and adverse. A significant effect may exist even if the Federal agency believes that on balance the effect will be beneficial. (2) The degree to which the proposed action affects public health or safety. (3) Unique characteristics of the geographic area such as proximity to historic or cultural resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas. (4) The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be highly controversial. (5) The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks. (6) The degree to which the action may establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects or represents a decision in principle about a future consideration. (7) Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts. Significance exists if it is reasonable to anticipate a cumulatively significant impact on the environment. Significance cannot be avoided by terming an action temporary or by breaking it down into small component parts. (8) The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places or may cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources. (9) The degree to whi”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“), comprised of one member from each of the ratifying countries. The IWC is empowered to set international whaling regulations and annual whaling quotas Id. at arts. III, V § 1. The United States signed the Convention, 62 Stat. 1716 (1946), and implemented it domestically in the Whaling Convention Act of 1949 (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Anderson v. Evans“With the extreme movements of whales in the [PCFA] both within and between seasons ... a limit of five strikes over two years should also alleviate any potential local depletion issues.”
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.