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’s Empirical Analysis
459 F.2d 1231 · 1972
Citation profile
90 federal appellate · 29 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 180 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2019 · most notably United States v. Mead Corp. (2001), Sierra Club v. Costle (1981)
90 federal appellate · 29 district · 8 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 16 U.S.C. § 1 (National Park Police Drug Enforcement Supplemental Authority Act) · 16 U.S.C. § 470 (National Historic Lighthouse Preservation Act of 2000) · 16 U.S.C. § 470F · 23 U.S.C. § 102 · 23 U.S.C. § 103 · 23 U.S.C. § 109 · 23 U.S.C. § 128 · 23 U.S.C. § 134
Relies on Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe · Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation Same · Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation · Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. · United States Accardi v. Shaughnessy
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 180 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“. . . the decision would be invalid if based in whole or in part on the pressures emanating from Representative Natcher. Judge Fahy agrees, and we therefore hold, that on remand the Secretary *Page 137 must make new determinations based strictly on the merits and completely without regard to any considerations not made relevant by Congress in the applicable statutes.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“****** By way of footnote the D. C. Circuit’s opinion observes: It might be argued that a remand would be futile here since the agency can only repeat the process it purports already to have undertaken: namely, considering the project solely on its merits. While we agree that a remand would be academic if the agency would inevitably arrive at the same result, NLRB v. Wyman-Gordon Co., 394 U.S. 759 , 766-767 n. 6, 89 S.Ct. 1426 , 22 L.Ed.2d 709 (1969); Friendly, The “Limited Office” of the Chenery Decision, 21 Ad.L.Rev. 1, 5 (1968), it seems entirely possible that the agency could reach a different result if it could insulate itself from extraneous pressures unrelated to the merits of the question. On remand, the agency will have an opportunity to take steps to achieve the insulation required by statute and long-established principles of administrative law, perhaps by compiling a full-scale administrative record, utilizing fully intra-agency review procedures, and consulting with other agencies and planning groups.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[A] project which respects a park’s territorial integrity may still, by means of noise, air pollution and general unsightliness, dissipate its aesthetic value, crush its wildlife, defoliate its vegetation, and “take” it in every practical sense.”
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.