621 F. Supp. 7 - Jones v. Gordon’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 16 U.S.C. § 1361 (§ 2 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972) · 16 U.S.C. § 1362 (§ 3 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972) · 16 U.S.C. § 1374 (§ 104 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972) · 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 Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Peter J. Migliorini v. New York · Butz v. Hein · Rich v. United States · Portland Cement Ass'n v. Ruckelshaus
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“public controversy based on potential environmental consequences.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Tim Jones Nancy & James Lethcoe Wendy Simpson Alaska Wilderness Sailing Safaris Stan Stephens Charters the Whale Center Simpson's Marine Charters the Sierra Club Greenpeace, U.S.A. Greenpeace, Canada and South East Alaska Conservation Council, Inc., and State of Alaska, Intervenor-Plaintiff-Appellee. v. William G. Gordon, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service John v. Byrne, Administrator for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Malcolm Baldrige, Secretary for the United States Department of Commerce and the United States Department of Commerce, Tim Jones Nancy & James Lethcoe Wendy Simpson Alaska Wilderness Sailing Safaris Stan Stephens Charters the Whale Center Simpson's Marine Charters the Sierra Club Greenpeace, U.S.A. Greenpeace, Canada and South East Alaska Conservation Council, Inc., and State of Alaska, Intervenor-Plaintiff-Appellee. v. William G. Gordon, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service John v. Byrne, Administrator for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Malcolm Baldrige, Secretary for the United States Department of Commerce and the United States Department of Commerce, and Sea World, Inc., Intervenor-Defendant-Appellant · Jones“uncertain environmental impacts or unique or unknown risks.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Tim Jones Nancy & James Lethcoe Wendy Simpson Alaska Wilderness Sailing Safaris Stan Stephens Charters the Whale Center Simpson's Marine Charters the Sierra Club Greenpeace, U.S.A. Greenpeace, Canada and South East Alaska Conservation Council, Inc., and State of Alaska, Intervenor-Plaintiff-Appellee. v. William G. Gordon, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service John v. Byrne, Administrator for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Malcolm Baldrige, Secretary for the United States Department of Commerce and the United States Department of Commerce, Tim Jones Nancy & James Lethcoe Wendy Simpson Alaska Wilderness Sailing Safaris Stan Stephens Charters the Whale Center Simpson's Marine Charters the Sierra Club Greenpeace, U.S.A. Greenpeace, Canada and South East Alaska Conservation Council, Inc., and State of Alaska, Intervenor-Plaintiff-Appellee. v. William G. Gordon, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service John v. Byrne, Administrator for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Malcolm Baldrige, Secretary for the United States Department of Commerce and the United States Department of Commerce, and Sea World, Inc., Intervenor-Defendant-Appellant · Jones“Any applicant for a permit, or any party opposed to such permit, may obtain judicial review of the terms and conditions of any permit issued by the Secretary under this section or of his refusal to issue such a permit. Such review, which shall be pursuant to chapter 7 of Title 5, may be initiated by filing a petition for review in the United States district court for the district wherein the applicant for a permit resides, or has his principal place of business, or in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, within sixty days after the date on which such permit is issued or denied.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Jones v. Gordon
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.