United States v. City of Fort Pierre’s Empirical Analysis
747 F.2d 464 · 1984
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 33 U.S.C. § 1251 (Alternative Water Sources Act of 2000) · 33 U.S.C. § 1311 · 33 U.S.C. § 1344 · 33 U.S.C. § 1362
Relies on Train v. City of New York · United States v. Tilton · United States v. City of Fort Pierre, SD
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * our holding does not challenge the Corps' jurisdiction with regard to any other artificially created wetland-type environment. Rather, our holding is limited to the situation in which the Corps, as an unintended byproduct of ordinary river maintenance, inadvertently creates a wetland-type ecological system on private property where no such system previously existed.”
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.