Save Our Wetlands, Inc. v. Sands’s Empirical Analysis
711 F.2d 634 · 1983
Citation profile
41 federal appellate · 5 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 75 later decisions — most recently December 2024 · most notably Avoyelles Sportsmen's League, Inc. v. Marsh (1983), Assiniboine & Sioux Tribes of Fort Peck Indian Reservation v. Board of Oil & Gas Conservation of State of Montana (1986)
41 federal appellate · 5 district ·
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 33 U.S.C. § 1342 · 33 U.S.C. § 1344 · 33 U.S.C. § 1365 · 33 U.S.C. § 403 · 42 U.S.C. § 4332 (§ 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969) · 5 U.S.C. § 702
Relies on Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission · Sierra Club v. Morton · United States v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures (SCRAP) · Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Kleppe v. Sierra Club
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 75 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'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.'”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a] reviewing court is to review the administrative records as well as other evidence to determine whether the agencies adequately considered the values set forth in NEPA and the potential environmental effects of the project before reaching a decision on whether an environmental impact statement was necessary. If the agencies engaged in this analysis and reasonably concluded on the basis of their findings that an impact statement was not required, their determinations will be upheld.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“if the [environmental assessment] reveals that the quality of human environment would be significantly degraded by the proposed action....”
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.