Center for Native Ecosystems v. Cables’s Empirical Analysis
509 F.3d 1310 · 2007
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 5 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently January 2021
10 federal appellate · 5 district ·
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. § 1532 (§ 3 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 · 33 U.S.C. § 1313 · 33 U.S.C. § 1323 · 5 U.S.C. § 551 (Administrative Procedure Act of 1946) · 5 U.S.C. § 704 · 5 U.S.C. § 706
Relies on Bennett v. Spear · Federal Trade Commission v. Standard Oil Co. · National Ass'n of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife · Bell v. New Jersey · Olenhouse v. Commodity Credit Corp.
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(2) engaged in any activity resulting, or which may result, in the discharge or runoff of pollutants.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed ... upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.” 16 U.S.C. § 1532 (5)(A). Designation of areas as critical habitat requires federal agencies to ensure that their actions are not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat; agencies must both prevent extinction of the species and allow for its recovery so that the species may be removed from the list of endangered species (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Under The Porter-Cologne Act? Federal Defendants argue that the CWA claim is substantively deficient. The SAC alleges that the Forest Service's decision to authorize grazing violates California's Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act because it allowed nonpoint source pollutant discharges without first obtaining a permit or a waiver, leading to violations of California water quality standards. Mot. at 17 (citing SAC ¶¶ 59-60). Federal Defendants argue that the Forest Service is not a”
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.