Conservation Society of Southern Vermont, Inc. v. Secretary of Transportation’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

74 federal appellate · 13 district · 2 state decisions

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 130 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Ordinarily, the 60-day notice provisions must be adhered to prior to initiation of suit under the FWPCA. The purpose of the 60-day notice procedure of § 1365 is to provide the Administrator time to launch governmental enforcement of the FWPCA in lieu of enforcement through private citizens suits. See Sen.Rep.No. 92-414, 92nd Cong., 1st Sess., 79-80 (1971); 1972 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 3668, 3745. “However, a crabbed construction of § 1365 which woúld elevate the 60-day rule to the position of an absolute barrier to earlier suit fails to account for § 1365(e), which preserves all private rights to sue for relief under any statute or common law. Moreover, a review of the legislative history of § 1365 and its prototype, § 304 of the Clean Air Act, supports the conclusion that the provisions for obtaining judicial review set forth in § 1365 were not intended to eliminate avenues previously available to citizens seeking enforcement of the Act, but were rather intended to provide citizens with an additional remedy. Section 304 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1857h et seq., was the model for the citizen-suit provision of the FWPCA, and is substantially identical to § 505 of the FWPCA.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 401 F. Supp. 1386 - Friends of the Earth v. Carey · National Sea Clammers Association v. City of New York E R J

2. “[although the procedural requirements of NEPA must be followed scrupulously ... it remains within the sound discretion of a district court to decline an injunction, even where deviations from prescribed NEPA procedures have occurred.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 129 F. Supp. 2d 551 - Preservation Coalition of Erie County v. Federal Transit Administration · 484 F. Supp. 455 - Sierra Club v. Alexander

3. ““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
   e.g. Chelsea Neighborhood Associations v. United States Postal Service