R. J. Higginbotham and Mrs. Mary S. Dennis v. E. W. Barrett and E. P. Ellison’s Empirical Analysis
473 F.2d 745 · 1973
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently June 2011 · most notably Pearson v. City of Grand Blanc (1992), Fred B. Shelton Iii, and John Paul Jones, Cross v. City of College Station, Cross-Appellants (1986)
19 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 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 33 U.S.C. § 1151
Relies on Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. Camp · Sierra Club v. Morton · Association of Data Processing Service Organizations Inc v. B Camp Barlow · Goldblatt v. Town of Hempstead · Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Hardin
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The law is settled that the zoning of property, including the preparation of comprehensive land use plans, involves the exercise of judgment which is legislative in character and is subject to judicial control only if arbitrary and without rational basis.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Is the interest they [plaintiffs] seek to protect elimination of water pollution near their residences, arguably within the zone of interests to be protected by the Water Pollution Control Act?” 473 F.2d at 748 (bracketed information added) * * * -X- -X- * “The answer is no. There is nothing in the Act which creates a right of action in private parties such as plaintiffs to seek abatement of water pollution . . . There is no suggestion whatever in the Act that it inures to the benefit of persons such as plaintiffs to the extent of providing a basis for suit . . . The import of the Act is to the contrary; it contemplates action on the part of government and sometimes private industry to control and eliminate pollution. It does not suggest a private Attorney General approach through . private suits.” 473 F.2d at 748-749 .”
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.