Daly v. Volpe’s Empirical Analysis
514 F.2d 1106 · 1975
Citation profile
31 federal appellate · 11 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 61 later decisions — most recently July 2010 · most notably Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley (1987), Thomas v. Peterson (1985)
31 federal appellate · 11 district · 2 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 23 U.S.C. § 101 (America Fast Forward Financing Innovation Act of 2012) · 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. § 706
Relies on Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe · Calvert Cliffs' Coordinating Committee, Inc. v. United States Atomic Energy Commission · Mitchell v. Woodworth · Trout Unlimited v. Morton · Lathan v. Brinegar
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 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(The EIS's) form, content, and preparation (must) substantially (1) provide decision-makers with an environmental disclosure sufficiently detailed to aid in the substantive decision whether to proceed with the project in the light of its environmental consequences, and (2) make available to the public, information of the proposed project's environmental impact and encourage public participation in the development of that information.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a substantial length of highway between logical termini (major cross-roads, population centers, major traffic generators, or similar major highway control elements) as normally included in a single location study.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The role of the courts in reviewing agency compliance with NEPA is a very limited one. The court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the necessity or desirability of the roadway, nor can the court balance the benefits of the road against its adverse effects on the environment. Jica rilla Apache Tribe of Indians v. Morton, 471 F.2d 1275, 1279-1280 (9th Cir. 1973). Unless the agency decision was so arbitrary and capricious as to amount to bad faith, the court cannot review the substantive decision of the agency. See Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 , 91 S.Ct. 814 , 28 L.Ed.2d 136 (1971); Calvert Cliffs Coordinating Committee v. United States Atomic Energy Commission, 146 U.S.App.D.C. 33 , 449 F.2d 1109 (1971); Jicarilla Apache Tribe of Indians v. Morton, supra. See also, Note, The Least Adverse Alternative Approach to Substantive Review Under NEPA, 88 Harv.L.Rev. 735 (1975). Rather, judicial review is limited to the question whether the agency action, findings, and conclusions are ‘without observance of procedure required by law.’ Administrative Procedure Act § 10(e)(4), 5 U.S.C. § 706 (2)(D); Lathan v. Brinegar, 506 F.2d at 693 .” Daly v. Volpe, 514 F.2d 1106, 1108-1109 (1975).”
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.