Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 859 F.2d 313 - National Wildlife Federation v. Hanson

National Wildlife Federation v. Hanson’s Empirical Analysis

859 F.2d 313 · 1988

Citation profile

154
cited by 154 later decisions
3
states following
March 2023
most recently cited

68 federal appellate · 9 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 154 later decisions — most recently March 2023 · most notably Muth v. United States (1993), Gates

68 federal appellate · 9 district · 4 state decisions

74019881990200020102020decided

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 33 U.S.C. § 1344 · 33 U.S.C. § 1365 · 42 U.S.C. § 1988 · 42 U.S.C. § 7607 · 5 U.S.C. § 701

Relies on Hensley v. Eckerhart · Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe · Blum v. Stenson · Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc. · Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens' Council for Clean Air

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

  1. “to partially prevailing parties where the action served to promote the purposes of the Act,”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “'plain' and refusal to consider it would result in a miscarriage of justice.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “serve[d] a key purpose of the citizen suit provisions which is to ensure that the agencies fulfill their duties under the [Clean Water Act] responsibly,”
    3 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.