Johnston v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis
698 F.2d 1088 · 1983
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 8 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently September 2017 · most notably Animal Defense Council v. Hodel (1988), Hughes River Watershed Conservancy v. Glickman (1996)
19 federal appellate · 8 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 42 U.S.C. § 1962D · 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. § 701 · 5 U.S.C. § 706
Relies on Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe · Udall v. Tallman · Alfred Dunhill of London, Inc. v. Republic of Cuba · Citizens & Southern National Bank v. United States · Environmental Defense Fund v. Marsh
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In the ease of any project authorized before January 3, 1969, if the appropriate non-Federal interests have, prior to December 31, 1969, given satisfactory assurances to pay the required non-Federal share of project costs, the discount rate to be used in the computation of benefits and costs for such project shall be the rate in effect immediately prior to December 24, 1968, and that rate shall continue to be used for such project until construction has been completed, unless otherwise provided by a statute enacted after March 7, 1974.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. 578 F. Supp. 770 - Mardis v. Big Nance Creek Water Management District · State of North Dakota Ex Rel. Board of University and School Lands v. Clayton K. Yeutter, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Milton Hertz, Administrator of the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service James M. Davis, Assistant Deputy Administrator of the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, State of North Dakota Ex Rel. Board of University and School Lands v. Clayton K. Yeutter, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Milton Hertz, Administrator of the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service Thomas A. Vongarlem, Assistant Deputy Administrator of the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, State of North Dakota Ex Rel. Board of University and School Lands, Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Clayton K. Yeutter, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Milton Hertz, Administrator of the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service James M. Davis, Assistant Deputy Administrator of the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, Appellants/cross-Appellees. State of North Dakota Ex Rel. Board of University and School Lands, Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Clayton K. Yeutter, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Milton Hertz, Administrator of the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service Thomas A. Vongarlem, Assistant Deputy Administrator of the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, Appellants/cross-Appellees“a reasonable, good faith, and objective presentation of the subjects required by NEPA.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In the Tenth Circuit, Judicial review of an EIS is limited to a consideration of the following: (1) does the EIS discuss all of the five procedural requirements listed in 42 U.S.C. § 4322 (C); (2) does the EIS constitute a good faith compliance with the demands of NEPA; and (3) does the statement contain a reasonable discussion of the subject matter involved in the five respective areas?”
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.