Simmans v. Grant’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 5 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently March 2009
5 federal appellate · 5 district ·
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 16 U.S.C. § 1001 (Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 42 U.S.C. § 4331 (§ 101 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969) · 42 U.S.C. § 4332 (§ 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969) · 5 U.S.C. § 701
Relies on United States v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures (SCRAP) · Calvert Cliffs' Coordinating Committee, Inc. v. United States Atomic Energy Commission · Carpenter v. United States · Cupp v. Naughten · Mitchell v. Woodworth
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(i) No EIS is required for the temporary tests of runway 13L; (ii) Any permanent use of the south departure on runway 13L will be a major action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and will require an environmental impact statement; (iii) The conclusions in the FONSI issued by the FAA were not unreasonable; (iv) The FAA did not violate its regulations in issuing the FONSI; (v) The “commitment” to Irving regarding runway 13L will not support plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief; (vi) The plaintiffs have not established their right to enjoin the tests on runway 13L; and (vii) The arguments raised in the defendants’ motions to dismiss are not valid, so these motions should be denied.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““[I]n deciding whether a major federal action will ‘significantly’ affect the quality of the human environment the agency in charge, although vested with broad discretion, should normally be required to review the proposed action in the light of at least two relevant factors: (1) the extent to which the action will cause adverse environmental effects in excess of those created by existing uses in the area affected by it, and (2) the absolute quantitative adverse environmental effects of the action itself, including the cumulative harm that results from its contribution to existing adverse conditions or uses in the affected area. . . . ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Ejven though no formal impact statement is thought to be necessary, NEPA requires an agency to develop affirmatively a reviewable environmental record____ What is actually required under NEPA and [the implementing] regulations is that the federal agency prepare a “mini” environmental analysis after consultation with the appropriate agencies and authorities, although obviously not in the same detail as a regular environmental impact statement____ Without such a record it is impossible for a district court to determine whether or not the agency has complied with ... NEPA.”
2 later decisions 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.