Jones’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
45
cited by 45 later decisions
1
states following
February 2025
most recently cited
6 federal appellate · 13 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently February 2025 · most notably Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish & Game Commission (1997), Greenpeace Action v. Franklin
6 federal appellate · 13 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
Relies on Hannahville Indian Community v. United States · United States v. McConney · Calvert Cliffs' Coordinating Committee, Inc. v. United States Atomic Energy Commission · Garcia v. Ingram · Flint Ridge Development Company v. Scenic Rivers Association of Oklahoma a Hills
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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“provide for extraordinary circumstances in which a normally excluded action may have a significant environmental effect.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State of California California Coastal Commission Gray Davis, Governor Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, and Natural Resources Defense Council League for Coastal Protection Get Oil Out! Citizens Planning Association of Santa Barbara California Public Interest Research Group Sierra Club Friends of the Sea Otter California Coastkeeper Santa Barbara Channelkeeper Santa Monica Baykeeper, Inc., Intervenors-Appellees, and Santa Barbara County San Luis Obispo County, Intervenors-Appellees v. Gale Norton, Secretary of the Department of Interior United States Department of the Interior Minerals Management Service Regional Supervisor of the Minerals Management Service, and Aera Energy LLC Conoco, Inc. Nuevo Energy Company Poseidon Petroleum, LLC Samedan Oil Corp., Intervenors-Appellants. State of California California Coastal Commission Gray Davis, Governor Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, and Natural Resources Defense Council League for Coastal Protection Get Oil Out! Citizens Planning Association of Santa Barbara California Public Interest Research Group Sierra Club Friends of the Sea Otter California Coastkeeper Santa Barbara Channelkeeper Santa Monica Baykeeper, Inc., Intervenors-Appellees, and Santa Barbara County San Luis Obispo County, Intervenors-Appellees v. Gale Norton, Secretary of the Department of Interior United States Department of the Interior Minerals Management Service Regional Supervisor of the Minerals Management Service, and Aera Energy LLC Conoco, Inc. Nuevo Energy Company Poseidon Petroleum, LLC Samedan Oil Corp., Intervenors-Appellants · California“the arguable existence of public controversy based on potential environmental consequences.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State of California California Coastal Commission Gray Davis, Governor Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, and Natural Resources Defense Council League for Coastal Protection Get Oil Out! Citizens Planning Association of Santa Barbara California Public Interest Research Group Sierra Club Friends of the Sea Otter California Coastkeeper Santa Barbara Channelkeeper Santa Monica Baykeeper, Inc., Intervenors-Appellees, and Santa Barbara County San Luis Obispo County, Intervenors-Appellees v. Gale Norton, Secretary of the Department of Interior United States Department of the Interior Minerals Management Service Regional Supervisor of the Minerals Management Service, and Aera Energy LLC Conoco, Inc. Nuevo Energy Company Poseidon Petroleum, LLC Samedan Oil Corp., Intervenors-Appellants. State of California California Coastal Commission Gray Davis, Governor Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, and Natural Resources Defense Council League for Coastal Protection Get Oil Out! Citizens Planning Association of Santa Barbara California Public Interest Research Group Sierra Club Friends of the Sea Otter California Coastkeeper Santa Barbara Channelkeeper Santa Monica Baykeeper, Inc., Intervenors-Appellees, and Santa Barbara County San Luis Obispo County, Intervenors-Appellees v. Gale Norton, Secretary of the Department of Interior United States Department of the Interior Minerals Management Service Regional Supervisor of the Minerals Management Service, and Aera Energy LLC Conoco, Inc. Nuevo Energy Company Poseidon Petroleum, LLC Samedan Oil Corp., Intervenors-Appellants · California“The issue is not without doubt and Sea World’s argument is plausible. Nevertheless, we agree with the district court that the apparent conflict between section 104(d) and NEPA is reconcilable. We begin our analysis with the important congressional mandate to have NEPA apply “to the fullest extent possible.” 42 U.S.C. § 4332 . These are strong words directing our statutory interpretation. The language was added by the Senate and House Conferees who stated in explanation: The purpose of the new language is to make it clear that each agency of the Federal Government shall comply with the directives set out in ... [Section 102(2) ] unless the existing law applicable to such agency’s operations expressly prohibits or makes full compliance with one of the directives impossible.... Thus, it is the intent of the conferees that the provision “to the fullest extent possible” shall not be used by any Federal agency as a means of avoiding compliance with the directives set out in section 102_ [N]o agency shall utilize an excessively narrow construction of its existing statutory authorizations to avoid compliance. 115 Cong.Rec. 39703 (1969), quoted in Calvert Cliffs’ Coordinating Committee, Inc. v. United States Atomic Energy Commission, 449 F.2d 1109, 1114-15 (D.C.Cir.1971). Thus, it appears to be the congressional desire that we make as liberal an interpretation as we can to accommodate the application of NEPA.”
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.