Realty Income Trust v. Eckerd’s Empirical Analysis
564 F.2d 447 · 1977
Citation profile
53 federal appellate · 25 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 105 later decisions — most recently May 2024 · most notably 32 Cal. 3d 779 - Fullerton Joint Union High School District v. State Board of Education (1982), Mountain States Legal Foundation v. Glickman (1996)
53 federal appellate · 25 district · 2 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 40 U.S.C. § 604 · 40 U.S.C. § 606 · 42 U.S.C. § 4321 (§ 2 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969) · 42 U.S.C. § 4332 (§ 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969)
Relies on Bates v. State Bar · Kleppe v. Sierra Club · Calvert Cliffs' Coordinating Committee, Inc. v. United States Atomic Energy Commission · Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Morton · Carpenter 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 105 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“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, (ii) any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented, (iii) alternatives to the proposed action, (iv) the relationship between local short-term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and (v) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Ordinarily when an action is being undertaken in violation of NEPA, there is a presumption that injunctive relief should be granted against continuation of the action until the agency brings itself into compliance. The fact that the present project is currently under construction by no means insulates it from the equity power of a court: The substantial additional costs which would be caused by court-ordered delay may well be justified by the compelling public interest in the enforcement of NEPA.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Certainly an allegation of injury to monetary interest alone may not bring a party within the zone of environmental interests as contemplated by NEPA for purposes of standing. But a party is not precluded from asserting cognizable injury to environmental values because his ‘real’ or ‘obvious’ interest may be viewed as monetary.”
2 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.