Save Our Ten Acres v. Kreger’s Empirical Analysis
472 F.2d 463 · 1973
Citation profile
86 federal appellate · 21 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 188 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2010 · most notably City of Davis v. Coleman (1975), Environmental Defense Fund v. Marsh (1981)
86 federal appellate · 21 district · 9 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 28 U.S.C. § 1404 · 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 Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe · Calvert Cliffs' Coordinating Committee, Inc. v. United States Atomic Energy Commission · Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Morton · Mitchell v. Woodworth · Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Corps of Engineers of United States Army
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 188 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“. the court should proceed to examine and weigh the evidence of both the plaintiff and the agency to determine whether the agency reasonably concluded that the particular project would have no effects which would significantly degrade our environmental quality. ... If the court concludes that no environmental factor would be significantly degraded by the project, GSA’s determination not to file the impact statement should be upheld. On the other hand, if the court finds that the project may cause a significant degradation of some human environmental factor (even though other environmental factors are affected beneficially or not at all), the court should require the filing of an impact statement or grant SOTA such other equitable relief as it deems appropriate. Save Our Ten Acres v. Kreger, 472 F.2d 463, 467 (5th Cir. 1973).”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he spirit of [NEPA] would die aborning if a facile, ex parte decision that the project was minor or did not significantly affect the environment were too well shielded from impartial review.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.”
9 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.