Bicycle Trails Council v. Babbitt’s Empirical Analysis
82 F.3d 1445 · 1996
Citation profile
35 federal appellate · 17 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 87 later decisions — most recently September 2023 · most notably Alaska Center for the Environment v. U.S. Forest Service (1999), Zimmerman v. Oregon Department of Justice (1999)
35 federal appellate · 17 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. § 1 (National Park Police Drug Enforcement Supplemental Authority Act) · 16 U.S.C. § 1A · 16 U.S.C. § 1C · 16 U.S.C. § 3 · 16 U.S.C. § 460B · 28 U.S.C. § 2401 · 42 U.S.C. § 4332 (§ 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969) · 5 U.S.C. § 706
Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of United States Inc v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company Consumer Alert · Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Cardoza-Fonseca · Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council · United States v. Shimer
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 87 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An agency satisfies NEPA if it applies its categorical exclusions and determines that neither an EA nor an EIS is required, so long as the application of the exclusions to the facts of the particular action is not arbitrary and capricious.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Native Ecosystems Council v. Erickson · 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“First, always, is the question whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress. If, however, the court determines Congress has not directly addressed the precise question at issue, the court does not simply impose its own construction on the statute, as would be necessary in the absence of an administrative interpretation. Rather, if the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the question for the court is whether the agency’s answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.” 42 U.S.C. § 4332 . The Council on Environmental Quality regulations implementing NEPA define the term”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.