Douglas County v. Babbitt’s Empirical Analysis
48 F.3d 1495 · 1995
Citation profile
53 federal appellate · 32 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 132 later decisions — most recently February 2025 · most notably Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish & Game Commission (1997), Cantrell v. City of Long Beach (2001)
53 federal appellate · 32 district · 5 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 15 U.S.C. § 1701 (Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 16 U.S.C. § 1532 (§ 3 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973) · 16 U.S.C. § 1533 (§ 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973) · 16 U.S.C. § 1536 (§ 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 42 U.S.C. § 4321 (§ 2 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969) · 42 U.S.C. § 4332 (§ 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969) · 5 U.S.C. § 551 (Administrative Procedure Act of 1946)
Relies on Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation · Carnegie v. United States · Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill · United States v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures (SCRAP)
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 132 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) that it has been accorded a procedural right to protect its concrete interests, and (2) that it has a threatened concrete interest that is the ultimate basis of its standing.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The person who has been accorded a procedural right to protect his concrete interests can assert that right without meeting all the normal standards for redressability and immediacy. Thus, under our case law, one living adjacent to the site for proposed construction of a federally licensed dam has standing to challenge the licensing agency’s failure to prepare an environmental impact statement, even though he cannot establish with any certainty that the statement will cause the license to be withheld or altered, and even though the dam will not be completed for many years.”
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.