Building and Construction Trades Council of Buffalo New York and Vicinity v. Downtown Development Inc 04-4865-Cv’s Empirical Analysis
448 F.3d 138 · 2006
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 12 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 61 later decisions — most recently January 2025 · most notably Brod v. Omya, Inc. (2011), Heffernan v. Missoula City Council (2011)
5 federal appellate · 12 district · 4 state decisions
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 Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Friends of the Earth Incorporateds v. Laidlaw Environmental Services Inc · Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation · Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission · Sierra Club v. Morton
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 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“reasonably tend to further the general interests that individual members sought to vindicate in joining the association and ... bears a reasonable connection to the association's knowledge and experience.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]o the degree that defendants challenge the factual underpinnings of [plaintiffs’] standing the argument is premature. Defendants may certainly test [plaintiffs’] standing as the litigation progresses by requesting an evidentiary hearing or by challenging [plaintiffs’] standing on summary judgment or even at trial. However, allegation of a credible risk may be sufficient at the pleading stage without further factual confirmation or quantification of the precise risk at issue. Adopting a more stringent view of the injury-in-fact requirement in environmental cases ... would essentially collapse the standing inquiry into the merits.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he ‘germaneness’ requirement of Hunt, as seen through the lens of the language of UAQ, ‘would seem to require only that an organization’s litigation goals be pertinent to its special expertise and the grounds that bring its membership together.’ Hodel, 840 F.2d at 56 ; accord Nat'l Lime Ass’n v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 233 F.3d 625, 636-37 (D.C.Cir.2000). In sum, the ‘requirement of germaneness is undemanding; mere pertinence between litigation subject and organizational purpose is sufficient.’ Nat’l Lime Ass’n, 233 F.3d at 636 (quoting Hodel, 840 F.2d at 58 ).”
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.