Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 355 F.3d 817 - BCCA Appeal Group v. EPA

BCCA Appeal Group v. EPA’s Empirical Analysis

2004

Citation profile

15
cited by 15 later decisions
January 2025
most recently cited

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently January 2025

70200420102020decided

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 Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of United States Inc v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company Consumer Alert · United States v. Mead Corp. · Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[t]his court will not consider questions of law which were neither presented to nor passed on by the agency ... challenges to [agency] action are waived by the failure to raise the objections during the notice and comment period ... [F]or the federal courts to review a petitioner’s claims in the first instance would usurp the agency’s function and deprive the [agency] of an opportunity to consider the matter, make its ruling, and state the reasons for its action ... [T]here-fore, only in exceptional circumstances should a court review ,for the first time on appeal a particular challenge to the [agency’s] approval of [an agency decision] not raised during the agency proceedings.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “The need for further studies does not mean, however, that the modeling relied upon today was unable to estimate the amount and type of emissions reductions needed for attainment. [The] EPA believes because the diagnostic/sensitivity tests do not reveal serious flaws in model formulations and the model generally predicts the right magnitude of the peak which is confirmed by the statistical measures and graphical analysis, that the model does provide an acceptable tool for estimating the amount of emissions reductions needed.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[a] simple model that assumes that if emissions from each source ... are decreased by the same percentage, ambient air quality concentrations decrease proportionately.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.