Citizens for Safe Power, Inc. v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Empirical Analysis
524 F.2d 1291 · 1975
Citation profile
27 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently August 1995 · most notably Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Securities & Exchange Commission (1979), Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (1976)
27 federal appellate ·
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. § 57A (Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914) · 28 U.S.C. § 294 · 42 U.S.C. § 2011 (Atomic Energy Act of 1954) · 42 U.S.C. § 2132 · 42 U.S.C. § 2133 (Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009) · 42 U.S.C. § 2134 · 42 U.S.C. § 2232 (Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009) · 42 U.S.C. § 2235
Relies on Power Reactor Development Co. v. International Union of Electrical, Radio & MacHine Workers · Calvert Cliffs' Coordinating Committee, Inc. v. United States Atomic Energy Commission · Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Ruckelshaus · Scientists' Institute for Public Information, Inc. v. Atomic Energy Commission · Mitchell v. Woodworth
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]t would be pointless, and a waste of agency resources, to require the [Atomic Energy Commission] to reapply efforts that have already gone into its basic health and safety regulations ... in the absence of some evidence that a particular facility presents risks outside the parameters of the original rule making. And in evaluating the sufficiency of agency determinations in particular eases it would be stultifying formalism to disregard the whole record and test the [Atomic Energy Commission] compliance by only the evidence received at so-called ‘health and safety' hearings; or [National Environmental Policy Act] compliance only on the basis of so-called ‘environmental’ hearings.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The setting of exposure standards at a given level requires the weighing of these risks and benefits to be derived therefrom. The weighing requires a value judgment as well as a measuring, and thus the standards are not scientific numbers below which no danger exists. “There has been a history of disagreement with the established radiation protection standards on the part of some members of the scientific community. The basis for this disagreement has often been the fact that science has been unable to fully discover the biological effects and costs of ionizing radiation. . This ignorance makes it impossible to assess fully the risks attendant to exposure in ionizing radiation.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“unreasonable to suppose that [environmental] risks are automatically acceptable, and may be imposed upon the public by virtue of the AEA, merely because operation of a facility will conform to the Commission's basic health and safety standards.”
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.