Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 828 F.2d 1300 - Ringsred v. Dole

Ringsred v. Dole’s Empirical Analysis

828 F.2d 1300 · 1987

Citation profile

23
cited by 23 later decisions
1
states following
November 2007
most recently cited

9 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently November 2007

9 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions

120198719902000decided

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 23 U.S.C. § 138 · 49 U.S.C. § 303 · 5 U.S.C. § 706

Relies on Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe · Ingraham v. Wright · John A. Volpe v. D. C. Federation of Civic Associations · D. C. Federation of Civic Associations v. John A. Volpe, Secretary of Transportation D. C. Federation of Civic Associations v. John A. Volpe, Secretary of Transportation, the District of Columbia, Walter J. Hickel, Secretary of Interior · Sierra Club v. Rogers C. B. Morton, Shell Oil Company, Intervenors-Appellees

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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “id. at 416 , 91 S.Ct. at 823 , and whether the Secretary could have reasonably believed that no such alternatives existed. Id. The second question is”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““An alternative route that also impacts upon parks and historic sites is not an ‘alternative to the use’ of such property” within the meaning of section 4(f). The term “use” is to be broadly construed, and should include any alternative that impairs the utility of the 4(f) property. The harmful effects of increased noise levels, air pollution, decreased accessibility, and neg ative visual impact of [a project] constitutes a use of the park as much as does a territorial encroachment.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “an alternative that does not effectuate the project's purposes is, by definition, unreasonable,”
    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.