The Jicarilla Apache Tribe of Indians v. Rogers C. B. Morton, Secretary of the Interior’s Empirical Analysis
471 F.2d 1275 · 1973
Citation profile
70 federal appellate · 21 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 131 later decisions — most recently September 2012 · most notably City of Davis v. Coleman (1975), Trout Unlimited v. Morton (1974)
70 federal appellate · 21 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 16 U.S.C. § 825G (§ 308 of the Federal Power Act of 1920) · 28 U.S.C. § 2201 · 42 U.S.C. § 4321 (§ 2 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969) · 5 U.S.C. § 706
Relies on Calvert Cliffs' Coordinating Committee, Inc. v. United States Atomic Energy Commission · Mitchell v. Woodworth · Greene County Planning Board v. Federal Power Commission · Lathan v. Volpe
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 131 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If we were to impose a requirement that an impact statement can never be prepared until all relevant environmental effects were known, it is doubtful that any project could ever be initiated.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“To hold in the abstract that meaningful public participation in the NEPA process cannot exist unless public hearings are held subsequent to the issuance of a draft environmental impact statement and pri- or to the preparation of the final document would be to substitute our judgment for that of Congress. It is true that the legislative history of NEPA indicates that the desire for a greater degree of responsiveness by administrative decision makers was one factor in the passage of NEPA. Despite this concern, however, there is no express provision in NEPA requiring administrative hearings as a procedural step in the preparation of § 102(2)(C) environmental impact statements.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““. . . The fact that it is not practicable to reassess the basic course of action does not mean that an environmental impact statement need not be filed prior to a further major action taken pursuant to that basic course of action. . The focus must lie on the practicability of adherence to the requirements of § 102(2)(C) [§ 4332(2)(C)] as regards each major federal action contemplated, not on the project as an entirety.” Ibid., 1282-1283. (Emphasis the court’s).”
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.