Hunter v. Morton’s Empirical Analysis
529 F.2d 645 · 1976
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently May 1998
10 federal appellate · 4 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
Relies on Union Oil Company of California v. The Honorable Rogers C. B. Morton, Secretary of the Interior of the United States of America · Southwestern Petroleum Corp. v. Udall · Thor-Westcliffe Development, Inc. v. Udall · Hannifin v. Morton · Pankey Land & Cattle Co. v. Hardin
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“This case came before the Court on the parties' cross motions for summary judgment and supporting memoranda. Upon full consideration, it is our opinion, assuming jurisdiction to review an act committed to the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior, that the Secretary acted well within the discretionary authority granted under Section 2(b) of the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. § 201(b)) in the promulgation of Order No. 2952 forbidding the issuance of prospecting permits for coal until further notice, as a consequence of which plaintiff's application was denied. "It is our further opinion that such order was not such a major Federal action significantly affecting the environment as to require the preparation of an environmental impact statement pursuant to Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. § 102(2)(C)). There being no genuine issue of material fact, defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Krueger v. Morton“In Hannifin v. Morton, 444 F.2d 200 (10th Cir.), we . considered the retroactive application of a rental fee on lands in prospecting permits applied for before such fee was announced. We there said: ‘We are of the opinion that the plaintiff and the members of the class had not acquired any vested right which would preclude subjecting them to the operation of the regulation.’ [Citations omitted.] In Hannifin v. Morton, we also said: “ . . .To hold otherwise, and to thereby recognize that the mere filing of an application creates a property right which is immune from modification, would seriously handicap the Secretary in the exercise of his proprietary duties.””
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.