Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 913 FSUPP 1334 - Mausolf v. Babbitt

Mausolf v. Babbitt’s Empirical Analysis

1996

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
August 2004
most recently cited

6 federal appellate ·

Relationships

Applies 16 U.S.C. § 1132 · 16 U.S.C. § 1531 (§ 2 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973) · 16 U.S.C. § 1532 (§ 3 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973) · 16 U.S.C. § 1536 (§ 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973) · 16 U.S.C. § 1538 (§ 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973) · 16 U.S.C. § 1539 (§ 10 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973) · 16 U.S.C. § 1540 (§ 11 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973) · 16 U.S.C. § 160

Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Udall v. Tallman

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

  1. “take” is “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” 16 U.S.C. § 1532 (19) (1994).”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Harm” is defined as an act “which actually kills or injures wildlife” and may include”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of [critical] habitat.” After such consultation, the FWS provides "a written statement setting forth the [FWS’s] opinion, and a summary of the information on which the opinion is based, detailing how the agency action affects the species or its critical habitat.” Id. § 1536(b)(3)(A). 4 . The closure order was issued through "The Compendium for Voyageurs National Park,” a document published annually and operating as the summary of the rulemaking implemented under the discretionary authority of the Park Superintendent. This document "serves as public notice” and “contains only a few of the laws and regulations pertaining to the administration of the park.”
    1 later decision 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.