The Indian Lookout Alliance v. John A. Volpe, as Secretary of Transportation’s Empirical Analysis
484 F.2d 11 · 1973
Citation profile
52 federal appellate · 11 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 95 later decisions — most recently August 2014 · most notably Environmental Defense Fund v. Marsh (1981), Trout Unlimited v. Morton (1974)
52 federal appellate · 11 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. § 470F · 23 U.S.C. § 101 (America Fast Forward Financing Innovation Act of 2012) · 23 U.S.C. § 104 · 23 U.S.C. § 120 · 23 U.S.C. § 128 · 42 U.S.C. § 4321 (§ 2 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969) · 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 Calvert Cliffs' Coordinating Committee, Inc. v. United States Atomic Energy Commission · Scientists' Institute for Public Information, Inc. v. Atomic Energy Commission · Mitchell v. Woodworth · Presidents Council, District 25 v. Community School Board No. 25 · 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 95 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he minimum length of state highway projects that are supported in part by federal funds must be extended to embrace projects of a nature and length that are supportable by logical termini at each end. * * * Segments that fit into an overall highway plan should be as large as is feasible under present construction and financing practices and at least be independently supportable by meaningful terminal points. However, an impact statement can be more extensive than the proposed project. Indian Lookout Alliance v. Volpe, 484 F.2d at 19.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“it does not have an independent utility of its own, which would require that it end in major termini, i. e. present major highways or cities.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The objective of section 102(2) (C) of the Act and of these guidelines is to assist agencies in implementing these policies. This requires agencies to build into their decisionmaking process, beginning at the earliest possible point, an appropriate and careful consideration of the environmental aspects of proposed action in order that adverse environmental effects may be avoided or minimized and environmental quality previously lost may be restored.” 40 C.F.R. § 1500.1 (a) (emphasis added). “As early as possible and in all cases prior to agency decision concerning recommendations or favorable reports on proposals for (1) legislation significantly affecting the quality of the human environment’ (see §§ 1500.5(i) and 1500.12) (hereafter ‘legislative actions’) and (2)’ all other major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment (hereafter ‘administrative actions’), Federal agencies will, in consultation with other appropriate Federal State and local agencies and the public assess in detail the potential environmental impact.” 40 C.F.R. § 1500.2 (a) (emphasis added). “It is important that draft environmental statements be prepared and circulated for comment and furnished to the Council as early as possible in the agency review process in order to permit agency decisionmakers and outside reviewers to give meaningful consideration to the environmental issues involved. In particular, agencies should keep in mind that such statements are to serve as ”
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.