Oregon Natural Resources Council v. Lyng’s Empirical Analysis
882 F.2d 1417 · 1989
Citation profile
31 federal appellate · 17 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently September 2018 · most notably Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project v. Blackwood (1998), Headwaters, Inc. v. Bureau of Land Management (1990)
31 federal appellate · 17 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. § 460G · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 2412 · 29 U.S.C. § 1053 (§ 203 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 33 U.S.C. § 1251 (Alternative Water Sources Act of 2000) · 33 U.S.C. § 1288 · 33 U.S.C. § 1313 · 33 U.S.C. § 1323
Relies on Hensley v. Eckerhart · Pierce v. Underwood · Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council · Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill · Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council
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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“provide sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an environmental impact statement or a finding of no significant impact.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The fact that the description of the no-action alternative is shorter than those of the other proposals does not necessarily indicate that the no-action alternative was not considered seriously. It may only reveal that the [agency] believed that the concept of a no-action plan was self-evident while the [other alternatives] needed explanation.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“The reasonableness standard involves less deference to the agency than does the arbitrary and capricious standard.... A finding that the agency's decision meets the more rigorous reasonableness standard thus necessitates the conclusion that the agency decision was not arbitrary and capricious.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.