Harriet F. Laflamme v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Joseph Keating , Respondent-Intervenor’s Empirical Analysis
852 F.2d 389 · 1988
Citation profile
47 federal appellate · 12 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 86 later decisions — most recently February 2025 · most notably Greenpeace Action v. Franklin, National Parks & Conservation Ass'n v. Babbitt (2001)
47 federal appellate · 12 district · 1 state decisions
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. § 791A (§ 321 of the Federal Power Act of 1920) · 16 U.S.C. § 803 (§ 10 of the Federal Power Act of 1920) · 16 U.S.C. § 806 (§ 13 of the Federal Power Act of 1920) · 16 U.S.C. § 817 (§ 23 of the Federal Power Act of 1920) · 16 U.S.C. § 825 (§ 301 of the Federal Power Act of 1920) · 16 U.S.C. § 825L (§ 313 of the Federal Power Act of 1920) · 42 U.S.C. § 4332 (§ 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969) · 5 U.S.C. § 706
Relies on Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States · Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Kleppe v. Sierra Club · Andrus v. Sierra Club · Massa v. United States
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 86 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The plaintiff need not show that significant effects will in fact occur, but if the plaintiff raises substantial questions whether a project may have a significant effect, an EIS must be prepared.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) Impacts that may be both beneficial and adverse. A significant effect may exist even if the Federal agency believes that on balance the effect will be beneficial. (2) The degree to which the proposed action affects public health and safety. (4) The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be highly controversial. (5) The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks. (8) The degree to which the action ... may cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources. (10) Whether the action threatens a violation of Federal, State, or local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'a substantial dispute exists as to [its] size, nature, or effect.'”
5 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.