Kokechik Fishermen's Ass'n v. Secretary of Commerce’s Empirical Analysis
839 F.2d 795 · 1988
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 5 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently August 2020 · most notably Strahan v. Coxe (1997), Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth Alliance v. Browner (1997)
15 federal appellate · 5 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. § 1021 · 16 U.S.C. § 1361 (§ 2 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972) · 16 U.S.C. § 1362 (§ 3 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972) · 16 U.S.C. § 1371 (§ 101 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972) · 16 U.S.C. § 1373 (§ 103 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972) · 16 U.S.C. § 1374 (§ 104 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972) · 28 U.S.C. § 292
Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Federal Election Commission v. Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee · Japan Whaling Ass'n v. American Cetacean Society · National Labor Relations Board v. United Food & Commercial Workers Union, Local 23 · Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Morton
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Congress decided to undertake this decisive action because it was greatly concerned about the maintenance of healthy populations of all species of marine mammals within the ecosystems they inhabit.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Congress foresaw the possibility that, in a given situation, there would be a lack of scientific information as to whether a proposed level of taking would be to the disadvantage of the marine mammals involved, and that might result in an inability to find whether the stock was at its optimum sustainable population. Before issuing any permit for the taking of a marine mammal, the Secretary must first have it proven to his satisfaction that any taking is consistent with the purposes and policies of the act — that is to say, that taking will not be to the disadvantage of the animals concerned. If he cannot make that finding, he cannot issue a permit. It is that simple.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[s]ince the Commission disclaims rather than asserts a power, there is all the more reason to feel assured of its disinterestedness and to resolve ambiguity in favor of its choice of construction.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.