Lathan v. Volpe’s Empirical Analysis
455 F.2d 1111 · 1971
Citation profile
77 federal appellate · 27 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 171 later decisions — most recently February 2019 · most notably Scientists' Institute for Public Information, Inc. v. Atomic Energy Commission (1973), Thomas v. Peterson (1985)
77 federal appellate · 27 district · 7 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
Applies 23 U.S.C. § 101 (America Fast Forward Financing Innovation Act of 2012) · 23 U.S.C. § 103 · 23 U.S.C. § 105 · 23 U.S.C. § 106 · 23 U.S.C. § 114 · 23 U.S.C. § 128 · 23 U.S.C. § 501 · 23 U.S.C. § 502 (Intelligent Transportation Systems Act of 1998)
Relies on Yakus v. United States · United States v. City & County of San Francisco · Calvert Cliffs' Coordinating Committee, Inc. v. United States Atomic Energy Commission · Ohio Oil Co. v. Conway · Diffenderfer v. Central Baptist Church of Miami, Florida, Inc.
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 171 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““11. Application of section 102(2) (C) procedure to existing projects and programs. To the maximum extent practicable the section 102(2) (C) procedure should be applied to further major Federal actions having a significant effect on the environment even though they arise from projects or programs initiated prior to enactment of the Act on January 1, 1970. Where it is not practicable to reassess the basic course of action, it is still important that further incremental major actions be shaped so as to minimize adverse environmental consequences. It is also important in further action that account be taken of environmental consequences not fully evaluated at the outset of the project or program. (Emphasis added). 36 Fed. Register 7727.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““We think, however, that this is one of the exceptional cases falling within the principle announced by the Supreme Court in United States v. City and Council of San Francisco, 1940, 310 U.S. 16 , 60 S.Ct. 749 , 84 L.Ed. 1050 . There, in answer to a similar argument, the Court said (pp. 30-31, 60 S.Ct. 749 ): . . we are satisfied that this case does not call for a balancing of equities or for the invocation of the generalities of judicial maxims in order to determine whether an injunction should be issued. . . . The equitable doctrines relied on do not militate against the capacity of a court of equity as a proper forum in which to make a declared policy of Congress effective.’ ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the more time and resources [defendants] are allowed to invest in this project, the greater becomes the likelihood that compliance with section 102 of NEPA, and the reconsideration of the project in light of the provisions of section 101, will prove merely to be an empty gesture .... Accordingly, “unless the plaintiffs receive now whatever relief they are entitled to, there is danger that it will be of little or no value to them or to anyone else when finally obtained.””
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.