Wilder v. Thomas’s Empirical Analysis
854 F.2d 605 · 1988
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 74 later decisions — most recently December 2018 · most notably Benjamin v. Coughlin (1990), Casa Marie, Inc. v. Superior Court of Puerto Rico for the District of Arecibo (1993)
21 federal appellate · 3 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 28 U.S.C. § 1738 · 42 U.S.C. § 4321 (§ 2 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969) · 42 U.S.C. § 7401 (Air Quality Act of 1967) · 42 U.S.C. § 7409 · 42 U.S.C. § 7410 · 42 U.S.C. § 7413 · 42 U.S.C. § 7502 · 42 U.S.C. § 7604
Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Allen v. McCurry · Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore · Migra v. Warren City School District Board of Education · Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation
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 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“emission standard or limitation under this chapter”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“any condition or requirement under an applicable implementation plan relating to transportation control measures”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 7401 et seq., on the ground that the proposed amended complaint failed to state a claim. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants violated requirements of the CAA relating to transportation control measures set out in New York State's implementation plan, which was adopted pursuant to CAA Sec. 7410. In essence, plaintiffs claim that construction of the project will lead to further violations of the CAA, and they seek an injunction against construction of the project. I. BACKGROUND 6 Plaintiffs rely in particular on Sec. 7604(a) which provides, in pertinent part, that”
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.