Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 422 U.S. 289 - Aberdeen & Rockfish R. Co. v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures (SCRAP)

Aberdeen & Rockfish R. Co. v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures (SCRAP)’s Empirical Analysis

1975

Citation profile

571
cited by 571 later decisions
22
cited 22 times by the Supreme Court
9
states following
May 2025
most recently cited

265 federal appellate · 75 district · 26 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 571 later decisions (22 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2025 · most notably Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1978), Kleppe v. Sierra Club (1976)

265 federal appellate · 75 district · 26 state decisions

2600197519801990200020102020decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedthe decision below (from District of Columbia District Court)

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1253 · 28 U.S.C. § 2321 · 42 U.S.C. § 4332 (§ 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969)

Relies on United States v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures (SCRAP) · Eisenstadt v. Baker · Rochester Telephone Corporation v. United States · Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Wichita Board of Trade · United States v. Florida East Coast Railway Co.

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

  1. “(i) the environmental impact of the proposed action, 9 "(ii) any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented, 10 "(iii) alternatives to the proposed action, 11 "(iv) the relationship between local short-term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and 12 "(v) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented. * * * (42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C)) 13 Our study of the present EIS, consisting of forty-six pages of textual material and numerous maps, charts and pictures, persuades us of the statutory adequacy of the EIS if this 15-mile segment of FAP 406 were to be considered alone. The EIS gives the requisite "hard look”
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “in every recommendation or report on proposals for . . . major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “is the time at which it makes a recommendation or report on a Proposal for federal action.”
    6 later decisions 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.