54 F. Supp. 2d 653 - Bragg v. Robertson’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently June 2012
3 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
Applies 30 U.S.C. § 1270 · 33 U.S.C. § 1344 · 42 U.S.C. § 4321 (§ 2 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969) · 5 U.S.C. § 553 (Administrative Procedure Act of 1946)
Relies on Foman v. Davis · Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America · Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Glenshaw Glass Company · Spring Meadows Apartment Complex Ltd. Partnership v. Stallings · Ogbomon v. United States
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.
“fair, adequate, reasonable, and faithful to the [applicable] environmental statutes.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“CD”) ¶¶ 4, 5. However, a recent Order by the West Virginia Surface Mine Board that would allow a Spruce Fork surface mining permit only after significant revision, subject both to the Consent Decree and to public notice and comment, makes such continuing jurisdiction unnecessary. See infra part II.D. 3 . The Federal Defendants are Dana Robertson, Colonel, District Engineer; Joe N. Ballard, Lieutenant General, Chief of Engineers and Commander; and Michael D. Gheen, Chief of the Regulatory Branch, Operations and Readiness Division, all of the Corps. 4 . See W. Va.Code St. R. (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Typically, a motion for dismissal without prejudice should not be denied “absent substantial prejudice to the defendant,” Andes v. Versant Corp., 788 F.2d 1033, 1036 (4th Cir.1986). Comparatively, actual legal prejudice is the standard rather than the mere prospect of suffering subsequent lawsuits, Davis v. USX Corp., 819 F.2d 1270, 1274-75 (4th Cir.1987).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.