Baca v. King’s Empirical Analysis
92 F.3d 1031 · 1996
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 12 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently December 2014 · most notably Public Interest Research Group of New Jersey, Inc. v. Magnesium Elektron, Inc. (1997), Utah v. Babbitt (1998)
15 federal appellate · 12 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 42 U.S.C. § 4321 (§ 2 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969) · 43 U.S.C. § 1716 · 43 U.S.C. § 1752 · 43 U.S.C. § 315
Relies on Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Warth v. Seldin · Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc. · Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. Camp
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] party seeking to invoke a federal court’s jurisdiction must demonstrate three things: (1) injury in fact, by which we mean an invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) a causal relationship between the injury and the challenged conduct, by which we mean that the injury fairly can be traced to the challenged action of the defendant, and has not resulted from the independent action of some third party not before the court; and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision, by which we mean that the prospect of obtaining relief from the injury as a result of a favorable ruling is not too speculative.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) that the plaintiff “suffered an ‘injury in fact’ ...” (2) that the injury is “ ‘fairly .... trac[able] to the challenged action of the defendant ...’ ’’and (3) that it is “ ‘likely,’ as opposed to merely ‘speculative,’ that the injury will be ‘redressed by a favorable decision.’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he very determinations of whether to renew grazing permits and whether public lands should even be designated for grazing purposes[, see 36 C.F.R. 219.20,] are matters completely within the Secretary of Interior's discretion.”
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.