Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 896 F.2d 354 - Leslie Salt Co. v. United States

Leslie Salt Co. v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

896 F.2d 354 · 1990

Citation profile

51
cited by 51 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
February 2018
most recently cited

25 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 51 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2018 · most notably Tabb Lakes, Ltd. v. United States (1993), Leslie Salt Co. v. United States (1995)

25 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions

420199020002010decided

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. § 1251 (Alternative Water Sources Act of 2000) · 33 U.S.C. § 1311 · 33 U.S.C. § 1344 · 33 U.S.C. § 1362 · 33 U.S.C. § 403

Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Vandygriff v. Phillips · Hannahville Indian Community v. United States · Bibby v. United States · United States v. McConney

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

  1. “The commerce clause power ... is broad enough to extend [federal] jurisdiction to local waters which may provide habitat to migratory birds and endangered species.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[a]ll other waters . . . the use, degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “a. Which are or would be used as habitat by birds protected by Migratory Bird Treaties; or b. Which are or would be used as habitat by other migratory birds which cross state lines; or c. Which are or would be used as habitat for endangered species; or d. Used to irrigate crops sold in interstate commerce.”
    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.