Fritiofson v. Alexander’s Empirical Analysis
772 F.2d 1225 · 1985
Citation profile
38 federal appellate · 7 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 88 later decisions — most recently January 2022 · most notably Felty v. Graves-Humphreys Co. (1987), Sabine River Authority v. U.S. Department of Interior (1992)
38 federal appellate · 7 district · 1 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 16 U.S.C. § 661 (Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act) · 33 U.S.C. § 1344 · 33 U.S.C. § 403 · 42 U.S.C. § 4331 (§ 101 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969) · 42 U.S.C. § 4332 (§ 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969)
Relies on Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · Pullman-Standard v. Swint · 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 88 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the area in which effects of the proposed project will be felt; (2) the impacts that are expected in that area from the proposed project; (3) other actions-past, proposed, and reasonably foreseeable-that have had or are expected to have impacts in the same area; (4) the impacts or expected impacts from these other actions; and (5) the overall impact that can be expected if the individual impacts are allowed to accumulate.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Under this standard the court must determine whether the plaintiff has alleged facts which, if true, show that the recommended project would materially degrade any aspect of environmental quality. [If the plaintiff] raise[s] substantial environmental issues concerning the proposed recommended project ..., the court should proceed to examine and weigh the evidence of both the plaintiff and the agency to determine whether the agency reasonably concluded that the particular project would have no effects which would significantly degrade our environmental quality ... If the court concludes that no environmental factor would be significantly degraded by the project, [the agency’s] determination not to file the impact statement should be upheld. On the other hand, if the court finds that the project may cause a significant degradation of some human environmental factor (even though other en vironmental factors are affected beneficially or not at all), the court should require the filing of an impact statement or grant [the plaintiff] such other equitable relief as it deems appropriate. (Emphasis deleted).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.