Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 961 F.2d 1310 - Hoffman Homes, Inc. v. Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency

Hoffman Homes, Inc. v. Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency’s Empirical Analysis

961 F.2d 1310 · 1992

Citation profile

19
cited by 19 later decisions
September 2002
most recently cited

9 federal appellate · 1 district ·

Relationships

Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City · National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. · Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn., Inc. · Wickard v. Filburn

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

  1. “(3) All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation, or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce including any such waters: (i) Which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes; or (ii) From which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce; or (iii) Which are used or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “Although we recognize that the Commerce Clause power is broad, it has never been extended to reach all areas in (much less those only potentially in) migratory bird flyways.... The Commerce Clause, at the very least, require some connection to human commercial activity.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “Hoffman owns a 43-acre parcel of land in Hoffman Estates, Illinois, which is devel oped into a housing subdivision known as “Victoria Crossings.” In preparation for construction of Victoria Crossings, Hoffman filled and graded parts of the site, including an 0.8 acre, bowl-shaped depression at the northeast border of the site. Before it was filled by Hoffman, this small depression was lined with relatively impermeable clay so that rain water could not drain off quickly and would collect in the bottom. The EPA found that the bowl-shaped depression, known as “Area A,” was an intrastate wetland. Area A had no surface or groundwater connection to any other body of water. It did not perform sediment trapping or flood control functions for any body of water, was not used for industrial or fishing purposes and was not visited by interstate travelers for recreational or other purposes. In fact, there is not even any evidence that migratory birds, or any other wildlife, actually used Area A for any purpose.”
    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.