Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 645 F.2d 701 - Nance v. Environmental Protection Agency

Nance v. Environmental Protection Agency’s Empirical Analysis

645 F.2d 701 · 1981

Citation profile

88
cited by 88 later decisions
5
cited 5 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
June 2021
most recently cited

44 federal appellate · 12 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 88 later decisions (5 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2021 · most notably Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Abudu (1988), Bond v. United States (2011)

44 federal appellate · 12 district · 1 state decisions

50019811990200020102020decided

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 15 U.S.C. § 793 · 42 U.S.C. § 7404 · 42 U.S.C. § 7407 · 42 U.S.C. § 7472 · 42 U.S.C. § 7607 · 5 U.S.C. § 553 (Administrative Procedure Act of 1946) · 5 U.S.C. § 706

Relies on Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe · Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner · Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City · Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission

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

  1. “[t]he effect of the regulations was to grant the Indian tribes the same degree of autonomy to determine the quality of their air as was granted to the states.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “If upon the coming down of the order litigants might demand rehearings as a matter of law because some new circumstance has arisen, some new trend has been observed, or some new fact discovered, there would be little hope that the administrative process could ever be consummated in an order that would not be subject to reopening. It has been almost a rule of necessity that rehearings were not matters of right, but were pleas to discretion. And likewise it has been considered that the discretion to be invoked was that of the body making the order, and not of the reviewing body.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The administrative process cannot provide for the constant reopening of the record to consider new facts, . . . and it is for the agency, not this court to determine when such reopening is appropriate, unless the failure to reconsider can be characterized an abuse of discretion”
    1 later decision 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.