Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 998 F.2d 699 - Seattle Audubon Society v. Espy

Seattle Audubon Society v. Espy’s Empirical Analysis

998 F.2d 699 · 1993

Citation profile

99
cited by 99 later decisions
December 2020
most recently cited

59 federal appellate · 11 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 99 later decisions — most recently December 2020 · most notably The Lands Council v. McNair (2008), City of Carmel-by-the-Sea v. United States Department of Transportation (1997)

59 federal appellate · 11 district ·

5601993200020102020decided

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

Relies on Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation · Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council · Massachusetts v. Mellon · California v. Block

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

  1. “Espy, 998 F.2d at 703. The opinion states: 14 In Lane County Audubon Soc'y v. Jamison, 958 F.2d 290 (9th Cir.1992), we expressly recognized that individual timber sales are driven by an underlying owl-management plan, and in Idaho Conservation League, we held that plaintiffs need not wait to challenge a specific project when their grievance is with an overall plan. 956 F.2d at 1519. 15 Id. at 703. See also Babbitt, 998 F.2d at 708 (”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “contains a 'reasonably thorough discussion of the significant aspects of the probable environmental consequences.'”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “why such an undertaking is not necessary or feasible.”
    3 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.