Douglas County v. Lujan’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district ·
Relationships
Applies 16 U.S.C. § 1531 (§ 2 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973) · 16 U.S.C. § 1532 (§ 3 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973) · 16 U.S.C. § 1533 (§ 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973) · 42 U.S.C. § 4332 (§ 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969) · 43 U.S.C. § 1181 · 5 U.S.C. § 702
Relies on Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe · Allen v. Wright · Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation · Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“economic impact and any other relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[E]ven if the Federal agency believes that on balance the effect [of the action] will be beneficial,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“NEPA applies to every major federal action absent a clear and unavoidable statutory conflict.”
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.