Grazing Fields Farm v. Goldschmidt’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

32 federal appellate · 22 district · 3 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 90 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““First, the court makes a substantive review of the agency’s action to determine if such action is arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706 . This substantive review, although conducted on the basis of the entire administrative record, is quite narrow in scope. The court should only assure itself that the agency has given good faith consideration to the environmental consequences of its actions and should not pass judgment on the balance struck by the agency among competing concerns. Second, a reviewing court must assess the agency’s compliance with the duties NEPA places upon it. These duties are ‘essentially procedural’. The primary procedural mechanism embodied in NEPA is the requirement that an agency prepare ‘a detailed statement’ discussing, inter alia, ‘alternatives to the proposed action’, 42 U.S.C. § 4332 (2)(C). Requiring an agency to discuss alternatives within the EIS serves numerous goals. The detailed statement aids a reviewing court to ascertain whether the agency has given the good faith consideration to environmental concerns discussed above, provides environmental information to the public and to interested departments of government, and prevents stubborn problems or significant criticism from being shielded from internal and external scrutiny.” Grazing Fields Farm v. Goldschmidt, 626 F.2d 1068 , 1072 (1st Cir. 1980) (citations & footnote omitted). See also Silva v. Lynn, 482 F.2d 1282 , 1283-84 (1st Cir. 1973).”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Roosevelt Campobello International Park Commission v. United States Environmental Protection Agency · Project B.A.S.I.C. v. Kemp

2. “The detailed statement aids a reviewing court to ascertain whether the agency has given [ ] good faith consideration to environmental concerns ..., provides environmental information to the public and interested departments of government, and prevents stubborn problems or significant criticism from being shielded from internal and external scrutiny.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Municipio de San Juan v. Junta de Calidad Ambiental · Sierra Club v. Marsh

3. “We also find persuasive policy reasons for holding that an administrative record cannot save an EIS that otherwise fails to satisfy NEPA. In short, the requirement of a detailed statement is not a pointless technicality even when the agency has in fact considered environmental factors in good faith; intra-agency consideration lacks the benefits secured by discussion in the EIS. NEPA seeks to achieve substantive environmental improvement by requiring full disclosure of the basis for agency action____ NEPA contemplates that disclosure be made ... to other departments of government and the public at large. Public oversight of government action that affects the quality of environment has flourished under NEPA____the logic of the district court’s approach (which concluded that the EIS and the administrative record satisfied NEPA requirements) runs counter to the socially useful scrutiny because it would place the burden of combing the administrative record, which is often scattered through the files of numerous federal and state agencies, on interested members of the public. NEPA expressly places the burden of compiling information on the agency so that the public and interested government departments can conveniently monitor and criticize the agency’s action____ The district court’s approach ... would hinder at least two of the purposes of an environmental impact statement ... it would hamper the flow of information to the public by making more difficult the endeavors of watchdog”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 574 F. Supp. 1203 - Pennsylvania Protect Our Water & Environmental Resources, Inc. v. Appalachian Regional Commission