Kane County v. Salazar’s Empirical Analysis
562 F.3d 1077 · 2009
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 3 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 2409A · 43 U.S.C. § 1701 (Federal Land Assistance, Management, and Enhancement Act of 2009) · 43 U.S.C. § 1712 · 43 U.S.C. § 932 · 5 U.S.C. § 706
Relies on Norton Secretary of the Interior et al. v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance et al. · Ohio Forestry Association Inc v. Sierra Club · Sprint Communications Co. v. APCC Services, Inc. · Olenhouse v. Commodity Credit Corp. · Sierra Club v. Hodel
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.
“If claims are determined to be valid R.S. 2477 highways, the Approved Plan will respect those as valid existing rights. . . . Nothing in this Plan alters in any way any legal rights the Counties of Garfield and Kane or the State of Utah has [sic] to assert and protect R.S. 2477 rights, and to challenge in Federal court or other appropriate venue any BLM road closures that they believe are inconsistent with their rights.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a]ny route not shown on Map 2 is considered closed upon approval of this plan, subject to valid existing rights.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“All actions by the Secretary concerned under this Act shall be subject to valid existing rights.”
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.