Thomas v. Peterson’s Empirical Analysis
753 F.2d 754 · 1985
Citation profile
103 federal appellate · 60 district · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 249 later decisions — most recently September 2022 · most notably Conner v. Burford (1988), Save Yaak Committee v. Block (1988)
103 federal appellate · 60 district · 11 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 15 U.S.C. § 631 (Business Opportunity Development Reform Act) · 16 U.S.C. § 1536 (§ 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973) · 16 U.S.C. § 1538 (§ 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973) · 16 U.S.C. § 1608 · 16 U.S.C. § 472A · 16 U.S.C. § 535 · 42 U.S.C. § 4332 (§ 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969)
Relies on Udall v. Tallman · Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill · Touche Ross & Co. v. Redington · Kleppe v. Sierra Club · Andrus 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 249 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“are interdependent parts of a larger action and depend on the larger action for their justification.”
13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“dividing a project into multiple `actions,' each of which individually has an insignificant environmental impact, but which collectively have a substantial impact.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[S]trict substantive provisions of the ESA justify more stringent enforcement of its procedural requirements, because the procedural requirements are designed to ensure compliance with the substantive provisions. The ESA’s procedural requirements call for a systematic determination of the effects of a federal project on endangered species. If a project is allowed to proceed without substantial compliance with those procedural requirements, there can be no assurance that a violation of the ESA’s substantive provisions will not result. The latter, of course, is impermissible. See TVA v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153 , 98 S.Ct. 2279 , 57 L.Ed.2d 117 .”
6 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.