National Wildlife Federation v. Gorsuch’s Empirical Analysis
744 F.2d 963 · 1984
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 7 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently July 2010
5 federal appellate · 7 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. § 1251 (Alternative Water Sources Act of 2000) · 33 U.S.C. § 1412 · 33 U.S.C. § 1412A
Relies on Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore · Hansberry v. Lee · Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust Co. v. Patterson · United States v. Armour & Co. · Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Clearly, plaintiffs were not outsiders unaware of litigation in progress that would ultimately affect their interests. In a deliberate choice of litigation strategy, they chose to stand on the sidelines, wary but not active, deeply interested, but of their own volition not participants. Although plaintiffs may not have had their day in court as litigants, they had the opportunity and for reasons of their own adopted a different approach. Plaintiffs cannot, at this stage, assert persuasively that the interest of finality should not prevail.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“coordination with the EPA. National Wildlife, together with plaintiff New Jersey State Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs, filed an amicus curiae brief in the New Jersey action in September 1981 and a motion to intervene in April 1982. 8 In the spring of 1982, the parties to the New Jersey action were engaged in negotiations and eventually agreed to consent judgment that tracked the provisions of the order entered in the New York case. The agreement stated that”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“that the execution by the Court of the judgments merely represents the embodiment of the agreement reached by the parties but does not constitute a review and approval of the terms and conditions”
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.