851 F. Supp. 2d 39 - Conservation Force v. Salazar’s Empirical Analysis
2012
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 3 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) · 16 U.S.C. § 1536 (§ 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973) · 16 U.S.C. § 1537 (§ 8 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973) · 16 U.S.C. § 1539 (§ 10 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973) · 16 U.S.C. § 1540 (§ 11 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973) · 5 U.S.C. § 706
Relies on Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe · Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of United States Inc v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company Consumer Alert · Bennett v. Spear · Camp v. Pitts · Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill
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.
“failed to articulate a satisfactory explanation for its decision.” Conservation Force v. Salazar, 851 F.Supp.2d 39 , 51 (D.D.C.2012) (”
2 later decisions 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.