Resources Ltd. v. Robertson’s Empirical Analysis
8 F.3d 1394 · 1993
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 2 district ·
Relationships
Applies 16 U.S.C. § 1604 · 5 U.S.C. § 706
Relies on Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation · Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council · Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Assn. · California v. Block
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[t]his circuit employs a ‘rule of reason’ that asks whether an EIS contains a reasonably thorough discussion of the significant aspects of the probable environmental consequences. A reviewing judge must make a pragmatic judgment whether the EIS’s form, content and preparation foster both informed decision-making and informed public participation____ Once satisfied that a proposing agency has taken a ‘hard look’ at a decision’s environmental consequences, the review is at an end.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The “existence of a viable but unexamined alternative renders an environmental impact statement inadequate.” Mumma, 956 F.2d at 1519 (citation omitted). An agency’s consideration of alternatives is adequate “if it considers an appropriate range of alternatives, even if it does not consider every available alternative.” Headwaters, Inc. v. Bureau of Land Management, 914 F.2d 1174, 1180-81 (9th Cir. 1990). J{! * * ❖ * Alternatives that are unlikely to be implemented need not be considered, nor “must an agency consider alternatives which are infeasible, ineffective, or inconsistent with the basic policy objectives for the management of the area.” Headwaters, 914 F.2d at 1180.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The federal courts lack power to make a decision unless the plaintiff has suffered an injury in fact, traceable to the challenged action, and likely to be redressed by a favorable decision.”
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.