United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
531 federal appellate · 189 district · 158 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,583 later decisions (38 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2023 · most notably United States v. Mead Corp. (2001), Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992)
531 federal appellate · 189 district · 158 state decisions — followed in 19 states
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.
Appellate journey
reviewedUnited States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc. (from Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1491 · 33 U.S.C. § 1251 (Alternative Water Sources Act of 2000) · 33 U.S.C. § 1288 · 33 U.S.C. § 1311 · 33 U.S.C. § 1344
Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority · Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City · Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City · Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission
Cited together with Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. United States Army Corps of Engineers · Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City · Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City · Agins v. City of Tiburon
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 1,583 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters.”
41 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“A requirement that a person obtain a permit before engaging in a certain use of his or her property does not itself “take” the property in any sense: after all, the very existence of a permit system implies that permission may be granted, leaving the landowner free to use the property as desired. Moreover, even if the permit is denied, there may be other viable uses available to the owner. Only when a permit is denied and the effect of the denial is to prevent “economically viable” use of the land in question can it be said that a taking has occurred.”
38 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“An agency's construction of a statute it is charged with enforcing is entitled to deference if it is reasonable and not in conflict with the expressed intent of Congress.”
23 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.