Pit River Tribe v. United States Forest Service’s Empirical Analysis
469 F.3d 768 · 2006
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 14 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 61 later decisions — most recently September 2023 · most notably The Lands Council v. McNair (2008), Salmon Spawning & Recovery Alliance v. Gutierrez (2008)
20 federal appellate · 14 district · 2 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 Landgraf v. USI Film Products · Friends of the Earth Incorporateds v. Laidlaw Environmental Services Inc · Sierra Club v. Morton · Bennett v. Spear · Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council
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.
“arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“did not reserve to the agencies the absolute right to deny development.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The agencies violated their duties under NEPA and NHPA and their fiduciary duty to the Pit River Tribe by failing to complete an environmental impact statement before extending Calpine’s leases in 1998. Hence, both the five-year lease extensions and the subsequent forty-year extensions must be undone. The rest of the project approval process, including the 1998 EIS, was premised on Calpine’s possession of a valid right to develop the land and therefore must be set aside____ We reverse the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the agencies, and direct the district court to enter summary judgment in favor of Pit River consistent with this opinion.”
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.