The Lands Council v. McNair’s Empirical Analysis
537 F.3d 981 · 2008
Citation profile
101 federal appellate · 86 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 319 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably Alliance for Wild Rockies v. Cottrell (2011), San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority v. Jewell (2014)
101 federal appellate · 86 district · 1 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 16 U.S.C. § 1600 (Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974) · 16 U.S.C. § 1604 · 16 U.S.C. § 475 · 16 U.S.C. § 528 (Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960) · 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 42 U.S.C. § 4231 · 42 U.S.C. § 4332 (§ 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969) · 5 U.S.C. § 701
Relies on Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of United States Inc v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company Consumer Alert · Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council · Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council · Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo
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 319 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“only if the agency relied on factors Congress did not intend it to consider, entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, or offered an explanation that runs counter to the evidence before the agency or is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise.”
33 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“• relied on factors which Congress has not intended it to consider, • entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, • offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency, or • offered an explanation that is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[I]n essence, Lands Council asks this court to act as a panel of scientists that instructs the Forest Service how to validate its hypotheses regarding wildlife viability, chooses among scientific studies in determining whether the Forest Service has complied with the underly ing Forest plan, and orders the agency to explain every possible scientific uncertainty. As we will explain, this is not a proper role of a federal appellate court. But Lands Council’s arguments illustrate how, in recent years, our environmental jurisprudence has, at times, shifted away from the appropriate standard of review and could be read to suggest that this court should play such a role.”
5 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.