Adler v. Lewis’s Empirical Analysis
675 F.2d 1085 · 1982
Citation profile
50 federal appellate · 7 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 90 later decisions — most recently February 2017 · most notably Oregon Environmental Council v. Kunzman (1987), Coalition on Sensible Transportation, Inc. v. Dole (1987)
50 federal appellate · 7 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 16 U.S.C. § 470 (National Historic Lighthouse Preservation Act of 2000) · 23 U.S.C. § 128 · 23 U.S.C. § 134 · 23 U.S.C. § 138 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 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) · 5 U.S.C. § 551 (Administrative Procedure Act of 1946)
Relies on Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe · Edelman v. Jordan · Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Kleppe v. Sierra Club · Swansboro Country, Inc. v. Lumberman's Mortgage Co.
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.
“even under the exacting § 4(f) requirements, the judicial branch may not “fly speck,” if it appears, in its review, that all factors and standards were considered. Whether or not the reports and studies use the “magic” terminology, there has been a reasonable and thorough review of a voluminous record accumulated over a span greater than ten years, which includes extensive public contribution.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“substantially impair[s] the value of the site in terms of its prior significance and enjoyment.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“), 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq. Plaintiffs assert the EIS (1) inadequately discussed the impacts of the proposed road, and (2) inadequately discussed alternatives. The appropriate standard for review of the adequacy of an EIS is well established in this circuit: Whether an EIS will be found in compliance with NEPA involves an evaluation of whether the discussion of environmental impacts”
3 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.