Arlington Coalition on Transportation v. Volpe’s Empirical Analysis
458 F.2d 1323 · 1972
Citation profile
111 federal appellate · 30 district · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 222 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2019 · most notably Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill (1978), City of Davis v. Coleman (1975)
111 federal appellate · 30 district · 12 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. § 110 · 23 U.S.C. § 112 · 23 U.S.C. § 114 · 23 U.S.C. § 117
Relies on Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe · Calvert Cliffs' Coordinating Committee, Inc. v. United States Atomic Energy Commission · D. C. Federation of Civic Associations v. John A. Volpe, Secretary of Transportation D. C. Federation of Civic Associations v. John A. Volpe, Secretary of Transportation, the District of Columbia, Walter J. Hickel, Secretary of Interior · Named Individual Members of the San Antonio Conservation Society v. Texas Highway Department
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 222 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““At some stage, federal action may be so ‘complete’ that applying the Act could be considered a ‘retroactive’ application not intended by the Congress.””
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Jones v. Lynn · Thompson v. Fugate“[i]f investment in the proposed route were to continue prior to and during the Secretary's consideration of the environmental report, the options open to the Secretary would diminish, and at some point his consideration would become a meaningless formality.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“116D.04 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS. Subdivision 1. Where there is potential for significant environmental effects resulting from any major governmental action or from any major private action of more than local significance, such action shall be preceded by a detailed statement prepared by the responsible agency or, where no governmental permit is required, by the responsible person, on: * * # * * * Subd. 4. Prior to the preparation of a final environmental statement, the person responsible for the statement shall consult with and request the comments of every governmental office which has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any environmental effect involved. Copies of the drafts of such statements and the comments and views of the appropriate offices shall be made available to the board and the public. The final detailed environmental impact statement and the comments received thereon shall precede final decisions on the proposed action and shall accompany the proposal through an administrative review process.”
4 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.