Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 354 F.3d 1229 - Lee

Lee’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

27
cited by 27 later decisions
September 2022
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 18 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently September 2022 · most notably 351 F. Supp. 2d 1232 - WY OUTDOOR COUNCIL POWDER RIVER BASIN RESOURCES COUNCIL v. US Army Corps of Engineers (2005), 52 F. Supp. 3d 1174 - High Country Conservation Advocates v. United States Forest Service (2014)

1 federal appellate · 18 district ·

200200020102020decided

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

Relies on Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council · Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Dames & Moore v. Regan · Goldberg v. Ellett

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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(1) the agency action is not adequately explained and cannot be reviewed properly without considering the cited materials, (2) the record is deficient because the agency ignored relevant factors it should have considered in making its decision, (3) the agency considered factors that were left out of the formal record, (4) the case is so complex and the record so unclear that the reviewing court needs more evidence to enable it to understand the issues, and (5) evidence coming into existence after the agency acted demonstrates that the actions were right or wrong.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “rule of reason standard (essentially an abuse of discretion standard) in deciding whether claimed deficiencies in a [SFEIS] are merely flyspecks, or are significant enough to defeat the goals of informed decisionmaking and informed public comment.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[tjhe consideration of alternatives to a proposed action is 'the heart of the environmental impact statement.' ” Lee, 354 F.3d at 1238 (quoting 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14 ). Therefore,”
    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.