Bennett v. Plenert’s Empirical Analysis
63 F.3d 915 · 1995
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 4 district ·
Relationships
Applies 16 U.S.C. § 1531 (§ 2 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973) · 16 U.S.C. § 1533 (§ 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973) · 16 U.S.C. § 1536 (§ 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973) · 16 U.S.C. § 1540 (§ 11 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973) · 42 U.S.C. § 4332 (§ 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969) · 5 U.S.C. § 701
Relies on Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. Camp · Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill · Gladstone, Realtors v. Village of Bellwood · National Union Fire Insurance v. Helfand
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.
“only plaintiffs who allege an interest in the preservation of endangered species fall within the zone of interests protected by the ESA.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The fact that the ranchers allege that they have an aesthetic and recreational interest in lower lake levels does not change anything. That interest — even though not economic in nature — does not serve the purpose of preserving any endangered species. Thus, it is not an interest protected by the ESA.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.