Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 643 F.2d 585 - Columbia Basin Land Protection Ass'n v. Schlesinger

Columbia Basin Land Protection Ass'n v. Schlesinger’s Empirical Analysis

643 F.2d 585 · 1981

Citation profile

140
cited by 140 later decisions
1
states following
September 2015
most recently cited

71 federal appellate · 29 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 140 later decisions — most recently September 2015 · most notably Thomas v. Peterson (1985), Friends of Endangered Species, Inc. v. Jantzen (1985)

71 federal appellate · 29 district · 1 state decisions

10001981199020002010decided

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

Relies on Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe · Udall v. Tallman · Aetna Life Ins Co of Hartford Conn v. Haworth · Powell v. McCormack · M'Culloch v. State of Maryland

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 140 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Judicial review of an agency’s decision not to file an environmental impact statement is governed by the rule of reasonableness. “The standard of judicial review is whether the agency decision not to develop an impact statement is reasonable and made objectively and ... in good faith on a reviewable environmental record. If the decision is reasonable, ‘the determination must be upheld.’ ””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[T]his court's role is to ensure that the agency has taken a 'hard look' at environmental consequences.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “If Congress had meant to include local plans such as that of Franklin County, they could have easily worded the statute to reflect that intent. We therefore hold that the BPA is not required to comply with the terms of the Franklin County Comprehensive Plan.”
    2 later decisions 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.