Aertsen v. Landrieu’s Empirical Analysis
637 F.2d 12 · 1980
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 11 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently October 2023 · most notably Fritiofson v. Alexander (1985), City of Aurora v. Hunt (1984)
15 federal appellate · 11 district · 1 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 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 42 U.S.C. § 1437F · 42 U.S.C. § 1485 · 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) · 42 U.S.C. § 5301 (Housing and Community Development Act of 1974) · 42 U.S.C. § 5303 · 42 U.S.C. § 5304
Relies on Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe · Kleppe v. Sierra Club · Eisenstadt v. Baker · Strycker's Bay Neighborhood Council, Inc. v. Karlen · 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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“all agencies of the Federal Government shall ... study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action in any proposal which involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“would go in quite a different direction from the declared purposes of the NEPA, inasmuch as its focus would be not on whether a project harmonizes with and avoids damage to the environment where it is proposed to locate it, but on whether there is a more suitable location or project on which the government could spend its money. The latter raises what are primarily non-environmental questions. We therefore conclude that § 102(2)(E) of NEPA does not impose upon HUD the duty of studying, developing and describing other uses it could have made of the funds....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.