Thomas v. Jackson’s Empirical Analysis
581 F.3d 658 · 2009
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 3 district ·
Relationships
Applies 33 U.S.C. § 1313 · 33 U.S.C. § 1315 · 33 U.S.C. § 1362 · 5 U.S.C. § 706
Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council · Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness v. Dombeck · Dioxin/Organochlorine Center v. Clarke · Sierra Club, Inc. v. Leavitt
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“any discernible, confined and discrete conveyance, including but not limited to any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fissure, container, rolling stock, concentrated animal feeding operation, or vessel or other floating craft, from which pollutants are or may be discharged.” 33 U.S.C. § 1362 (14). 8 . Arkansas permits site-specific modifications to its water quality standards”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“We review de novo a district court’s decision whether an agency’s action violates the [Administrative Procedure Act (APA) ]. Under the APA, our review of an agency decision is limited. After a searching and careful review of the record, we may set aside the [NIGC’s] action if it is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.”
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.