Shiffler v. Schlesinger’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 federal appellate · 9 district · 2 state decisions

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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In order to obtain judicial review of agency action, plaintiffs must satisfy two requirements: (1) they must demonstrate the existence of a case or controversy within article III, that is, that they have suffered injury in fact, economic or otherwise as a result of agency action; and (2) they must be persons ‘ . . . adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute,’ 5 U.S.C. § 702 (1970), that is, the interests they seek to protect must be arguably within the zone of interests to be protected by the act. Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150 , 153, 90 S.Ct. 827 , 25 L.Ed.2d 184 (1970); Barlow v. Collins, 397 U.S. 159 , 164, 90 S.Ct. 832 , 25 L.Ed.2d 192 (1970).””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. National State Bank v. Smith · Iowa Bankers Ass'n v. Iowa Credit Union Department

2. “(C) include in every recommendation or report on proposals for legislation and other major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, a detailed statement by the responsible official on- (i) the environmental impact of the proposed action.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 503 F. Supp. 314 - Township of Parsippany-Troy Hills v. Costle · National Association for Advancement of Colored People v. Medical Center Inc U S C

3. “Unlike private interest litigation, when NEPA has been violated, considerations of administrative inconvenience, cost or delay which may be presented in answering a tardy suit are not appropriate considerations upon which to justify withholding equitable relief. The central consideration is whether interruption of the iproject] which is in progress would severely prejudice the public interest which the agency action is serving; however, “[djelay and concomitant cost increase [in completing the project] would not alone justify non-compliance with the Act.” NEPA specifically contemplates that the administrative decisionmaking process will be burdened with the procedural requirements ... Therefore, as long as some environmental harm can still be ameliorated, compliance with NEPA will generally be ordered. When, however, the irreversible commitment of resources has already produced most of the environmental harm which an EIS would have anticipated, the costs-benefits matrix facing the decisionmaker is significantly altered, and the marginal utility ... of enjoining the project may be substantially lessened.... This is more likely when the district court finds that although the agency has not fully complied with NEPA, it has identified and considered the major environmental hazards. In this situation, the marginal environmental protection afforded by an injunction will be lessened to the extent that forcing full compliance with NEPA is unlikely to alter the substantive decision so”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 503 F. Supp. 314 - Township of Parsippany-Troy Hills v. Costle