Steamboaters v. Federal Energy Regulatory, Commission’s Empirical Analysis
759 F.2d 1382 · 1985
Citation profile
74 federal appellate · 15 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 120 later decisions — most recently August 2023 · most notably Greenpeace Action v. Franklin, Save Yaak Committee v. Block (1988)
74 federal appellate · 15 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 16 U.S.C. § 2705 · 16 U.S.C. § 2708 · 16 U.S.C. § 662 · 16 U.S.C. § 797 (§ 4 of the Federal Power Act of 1920) · 16 U.S.C. § 823A (§ 30 of the Federal Power Act of 1920) · 16 U.S.C. § 825L (§ 313 of the Federal Power Act of 1920) · 42 U.S.C. § 4332 (§ 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969) · 5 U.S.C. § 706
Relies on Kleppe v. Sierra Club · Shapiro v. United States · Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Wichita Board of Trade · American Farm Lines v. Black Ball Freight Service · Lassiter v. Department of Social Services
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 120 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“agency must supply a convincing statement of reasons why potential effects are insignificant.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“provide only general guidelines. Their effectiveness depends on how they are applied and enforced.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Tim Jones Nancy & James Lethcoe Wendy Simpson Alaska Wilderness Sailing Safaris Stan Stephens Charters the Whale Center Simpson's Marine Charters the Sierra Club Greenpeace, U.S.A. Greenpeace, Canada and South East Alaska Conservation Council, Inc., and State of Alaska, Intervenor-Plaintiff-Appellee. v. William G. Gordon, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service John v. Byrne, Administrator for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Malcolm Baldrige, Secretary for the United States Department of Commerce and the United States Department of Commerce, Tim Jones Nancy & James Lethcoe Wendy Simpson Alaska Wilderness Sailing Safaris Stan Stephens Charters the Whale Center Simpson's Marine Charters the Sierra Club Greenpeace, U.S.A. Greenpeace, Canada and South East Alaska Conservation Council, Inc., and State of Alaska, Intervenor-Plaintiff-Appellee. v. William G. Gordon, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service John v. Byrne, Administrator for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Malcolm Baldrige, Secretary for the United States Department of Commerce and the United States Department of Commerce, and Sea World, Inc., Intervenor-Defendant-Appellant · Jones“NEPA requires that federal agencies prepare a "detailed statement for major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. Here, the Agencies have concluded that preparing a PEIS at this time to examine region-wide environmental concerns is appropriate, even in the absence of on-the-ground environmental impacts resulting from the designation. Actual local environmental impacts must inevitably await site-specific proposals and the required site-specific environmental review. The decision to prepare an EIS for a programmatic action such as that described by Section 368 is supported by Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations at Title 40, Part 1502.4(b), of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 C.F.R. 1502.4(b)), which states that "Environmental Impact Statements may be prepared and are sometimes required for broad federal action such as the adoption of new agency programs or regulations (section 1508.8). Agencies shall prepare statements on broad action so that they are relevant to policy and are timed to coincide with meaningful points in agency planning and decision making.””
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.