Sierra Club v. Sigler’s Empirical Analysis
695 F.2d 957 · 1983
Citation profile
69 federal appellate · 12 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 134 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2025 · most notably Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council (1989), Avoyelles Sportsmen's League, Inc. v. Marsh (1983)
69 federal appellate · 12 district · 2 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. § 661 (Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 655 (§ 6 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970) · 33 U.S.C. § 1344 · 33 U.S.C. § 1413 · 33 U.S.C. § 403 · 33 U.S.C. § 701A · 42 U.S.C. § 4321 (§ 2 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969) · 42 U.S.C. § 4331 (§ 101 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969)
Relies on Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe · Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores · Pullman-Standard v. Swint · 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 134 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) whether the agency in good faith objectively has taken a hard look at the environmental consequences of a proposed action and alternatives; (2) whether the EIS provides detail sufficient to allow those who did not participate in its preparation to understand and consider the pertinent environmental influences involved; and (3) whether the EIS explanation of alternatives is sufficient to permit a reasoned choice among different courses of action.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“that the possibility of a total cargo loss by a supertanker is remote does not obviate the requirement of a worst case analysis”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not according to law”
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.