467 F. Supp. 141 - Joseph v. Adams’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently June 2022
4 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 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. § 106 · 23 U.S.C. § 128 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1361 · 42 U.S.C. § 4321 (§ 2 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969) · 42 U.S.C. § 4331 (§ 101 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969) · 42 U.S.C. § 4332 (§ 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969)
Relies on United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Ex Parte: Edward T Young · Edelman v. Jordan · Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. Camp · 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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(e) The following are examples of types of actions which would ordinarily have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment: ****** (2) An action that is likely to be highly controversial on the environmental grounds or with respect to the availability of adequate relocation housing. ****** (4) An action that (i) causes significant division or disruption of an established community or disrupts orderly, planned development, or is determined to be significantly inconsistent with plans or goals that have been adopted by the community in which the project is located, as determined by a responsible official(s); or (ii) causes a significant increase in traffic congestion. (5) An action which (i) is determined to be inconsistent with any federal, state or local law or regulation relating to the environment; or (ii) has a significant detrimental impact on air or water quality or on ambient noise lev els for adjoining areas; or may contaminate a public water supply system.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the threshold application of that standard to the facts in the particular case is for the agency. See, e. g., First National Bank of Chicago v. Richardson, 484 F.2d 1369 (CA 7, 1973), . . . most courts will review the agency’s threshold decision only where the plaintiff raises “substantial environmental issues,” that is, alleges facts, which if true, demonstrate the project could significantly affect the quality of the human environment. Joseph v. Adams, 467 F.Supp. 141, 151 (E.D.Mich. 1978).”
1 later decision 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.