River Road All., Inc. v. Corps of Engineers of the United States Army, 475 U.S. 1055 (1986). · Go Syfert
Search
River Road All., Inc. v. Corps of Engineers of the United States Army, 475 U.S. 1055 (1986). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 3× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 2007 · …aesthetic values do not lend themselves to measurement or elaborate analysis ⚠ not in text
156 citation events (9 in the last 25 years) across 29 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: D'Olive Bay Restoration & Preservation Committee, Inc. v. United States Army Corps of Engineers (alsd, 2007-03-15)
Treatment trajectory · 1986 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1986 2006 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 16 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (quoted) D'Olive Bay Restoration & Preservation Committee, Inc. v. United States Army Corps of Engineers (3×)
S.D. Ala. · 2007 · quote attribution · 3 verbatim quotes · confidence low
aesthetic values do not lend themselves to measurement or elaborate analysis
examined Cited as authority (quoted) Sierra Club v. Watkins (3×) also: Cited "see"
D.D.C. · 1991 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
this requirement is independent of the question of environmental impact statements, and operative even if the agency finds no impact.... for nonsignificant impact does not equal no impact; so if an even less harmful alternative is feasible, it ought to be considered.
examined Cited as authority (quoted) Manasota-88, Inc. v. Thomas (2×)
11th Cir. · 1986 · quote attribution · 2 verbatim quotes · confidence low
we are not sure how much, if any practical difference there is between 'abuse of discretion' and 'unreasonable
discussed Cited "see" State v. Whitmore
Neb. · 1991 · signal: see · confidence high
See, Hopkinson v. Shillinger, 866 F.2d 1185 (10th Cir. 1989) (habeas petitioner’s failure to present argument as to ineffectiveness of trial counsel to state supreme court on direct appeal does not bar consideration of claim in habeas corpus proceeding where trial counsel also represented petitioner on direct appeal), Riner v. Owens, 764 F.2d 1253 (7th Cir. 1985), cert. denied 475 U.S. 1055 , 106 S. Ct. 1282 , 89 L.
examined Cited "see" City of Los Angeles v. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (3×)
D.C. Cir. · 1990 · signal: see · confidence high
See River Road Alliance, Inc. v. Corps of Engineers, 764 F.2d 445, 449 (7th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1055 , 106 S.Ct. 1283 , 89 L.Ed.2d 590 (1986).
examined Cited "see" City of Los Angeles and City of New York v. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Automobile Importers of America, Inc., Ford Motor Company, General Motors Corporation, Intervenors. Center for Auto Safety v. Diane K. Steed, Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Automobile Importers of America, Inc., Ford Motor Company, General Motors Corporation, Intervenors. People of the State of California v. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Automobile Importers of America, Inc., Ford Motor Company, General Motors Corporation, Intervenors. Natural Resources Defense Council v. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Automobile Importers of America, Inc., Ford Motor Company, the City of New York, General Motors Corporation, Intervenors. Center for Auto Safety and Public Citizen v. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (3×)
D.C. Cir. · 1990 · signal: see · confidence high
See River Road Alliance, Inc. v. Corps of Engineers, 764 F.2d 445, 449 (7th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1055 , 106 S.Ct. 1283 , 89 L.Ed.2d 590 (1986).
examined Cited "see" Village of Palatine v. United States Postal Service (6×)
N.D. Ill. · 1990 · signal: see · confidence high
See River Road Alliance v. Corps of Engineers, 764 F.2d 445, 450 (7th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1055 , 106 S.Ct. 1283 , 89 L.Ed.2d 590 (1986).
examined Cited "see" Morgan v. Walter (3×)
D. Idaho · 1989 · signal: see · confidence high
See River Road Alliance, Inc. v. Corps of Engineers, dissenting opinion, cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1055 , 106 S.Ct. 1283 , 89 L.Ed.2d 590 (1986).
examined Cited "see" Neighbors Organized to Insure a Sound Environment, Inc. v. McArtor (3×)
6th Cir. · 1989 · signal: see · confidence high
See River Road Alliance v. Corps of Eng. of U.S. Army, 764 F.2d 445, 452-53 (7th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1055 , 106 S.Ct. 1283 , 89 L.Ed.2d 590 (1986) (further study of alternatives not required unless plaintiff is prepared to show that a plausible alternative site was overlooked).
examined Cited "see" Neighbors Organized To Insure A Sound Environment, Inc. v. Mcartor (3×)
6th Cir. · 1989 · signal: see · confidence high
See River Road Alliance v. Corps of Eng. of U.S. Army, 764 F.2d 445, 452-53 (7th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1055 , 106 S.Ct. 1283 , 89 L.Ed.2d 590 (1986) (further study of alternatives not required unless plaintiff is prepared to show that a plausible alternative site was overlooked).
discussed Cited "see" Abbema v. Fornell (2×)
7th Cir. · 1986 · signal: see · confidence high
In addition to the EA and its Finding of No Significant Impact (a “FONSI”) or its requirement of an EIS, where a proposal “involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources,” the Corps must “study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action.” NEPA, 42 U.S.C. § 4332 (2)(E); see River Road Alliance v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 764 F.2d 445, 452-53 (7th Cir.1985). cert. denied, — U.S. -, 106 S.Ct. 1283 , 89 L.Ed.2d 590 (1986).
discussed Cited "see" Loren Van Abbema and Barbara Van Abbema, and Edward R. Koeber and Mary D. Koeber v. Paul Fornell, D/B/A Warsaw Barge Loading Facility John O. Marsh, Secretary of the Army, and Lt. Gen. J.K. Bratton, Chief of Engineers, Department of the Army, Loren Van Abbema and Barbara Van Abbema, and Edward R. Koeber and Mary D. Koeber, People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellant v. Paul Fornell, D/B/A Warsaw Barge Loading Facility John O. Marsh, Secretary of the Army, and Lt. Gen. J.K. Bratton, Chief of Engineers, Department of the Army (2×)
7th Cir. · 1986 · signal: see · confidence high
Sec. 4332 (2)(E); see River Road Alliance v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 764 F.2d 445, 452-53 (7th Cir.1985). cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 106 S.Ct. 1283 , 89 L.Ed.2d 590 (1986). 7 Ultimately, the Corps must undertake a general "public interest review" to decide whether a permit should issue.
discussed Cited "see" Friends of the Earth v. Hintz (2×)
9th Cir. · 1986 · signal: see · confidence high
See River Road Alliance, Inc. v. Army Corps of Engineers, 764 F.2d 445, 453 (7th Cir.1985), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 106 S.Ct. 1283 , 89 L.Ed.2d 590 (1986).
discussed Cited "see" Friends of the Earth v. Hintz (2×)
9th Cir. · 1986 · signal: see · confidence high
See River Road Alliance, Inc. v. Army Corps of Engineers, 764 F.2d 445, 453 (7th Cir.1985), cert, denied, — U.S. -, 106 S.Ct. 1283 , 89 L.Ed.2d 590 (1986).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Larsen v. MUNZ CORP. (2×)
Wis. Ct. App. · 1992 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also River Road Alliance, Inc., v. Corps of Engineers, 764 F.2d 445, 450 (7th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1055 (1986), where the court recognized that the question on appeal is not whether the particular activity will affect the environment, or whether some or all members of the court would take a different action under the circumstances, but only whether the agency "exceeded the bounds of its decision-making authority" in concluding that the project would not significantly affect the environment. [10] I have indicated the extent to which the department's Preliminary Environmental I…
examined Cited "see, e.g." Board of Education of Community Unit School District 303 v. City of West Chicago (3×)
N.D. Ill. · 1988 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., River Road Alliance, Inc. v. Corps of Engineers of U.S. Army, 764 F.2d 445, 449 (7th Cir.1985) cert. denied 475 U.S. 1055 , 106 S.Ct. 1283 , 89 L.Ed.2d 590 (1986).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
River Road Alliance, Inc., Et Al.
v.
Corps of Engineers of the United States Army Et Al.; And Illinois v. Corps of Engineers of the United States Army Et Al.
85-785; 85-800.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 3, 1986.
475 U.S. 1055
White.
Cited by 45 opinions  |  Published
3 passages pin-cited by 3 cases
Pinpoint authority: bottom 92%
Citer courts: S.D. Alabama (3) · Eleventh Circuit (2) · District of Columbia (1)
Reporter's Syllabus — editorial summary, not part of the Court's opinion

ILLINOIS

v.

CORPS OF ENGINEERS OF the UNITED STATES ARMY et al.

No. 85-800

Supreme Court of the United States

March 3, 1986

On petitions for writs of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

The petitions for writs of certiorari are denied.

Justice WHITE, dissenting.

Lead Opinion

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 764 F. 2d 445.

Dissent

Justice White,

dissenting.

In 1980, respondent National Marine Service applied to respondent Army Corps of Engineers for a permit to construct a temporary barge-fleeting facility on the Mississippi River. After holding a public hearing on the environmental effects of the proposed facility, the Corps issued a brief “environmental assessment” concluding that the facility would have no significant environmental effects. Based on this conclusion, the Corps determined that it was not required to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the proposed project, since such an EIS is required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 83 Stat. 853, 42 U. S. C. §4332(2)(C), only for projects that will “significantly affec[t] the quality of the human environment.” Thus, the Corps issued the permit sought.

Petitioners, the State of Illinois and others including River Road Alliance, Inc., brought suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, challenging the issuance of the permit and the Corps’ underlying finding of no significant environmental effects. On petitioners’ motion for summary judgment, the District Court found that “[w]hile paying lip service to [NEPA], the Corps has failed to take the ‘hard look’ required to support its conclusions, and has failed to document that ‘hard look’ in the Environmental Assessment . . . .” App. to Pet. for Cert, in No. 85-800, p. 33. Based on this conclusion, the District Court held that the Corps’ action was arbitrary and capricious and entered judgment in favor of petitioners.

On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed. 764 F. 2d 445 (1985). While observing that[*1056] that court had previously held that an agency’s decision not to prepare an EIS is reviewed only for an abuse of discretion, see, e. g., Wisconsin v. Weinberger, 745 F. 2d 412, 417 (CA7 1984), the Court of Appeals in this case acknowledged that other Courts of Appeals have held that such decisions are reviewed for reasonableness. 764 F. 2d, at 449. Having noted these differing formulations, the Court of Appeals expressed its doubt as to the “practical difference” between the two standards: “There is plenary review and there is deferential review, and whether it is fruitful to attempt fine gradations within the second category may be doubted, though there is no need to resolve our doubt here.” Ibid. The court then declined to substitute its judgment for the Corps’ and reversed the decision of the District Court.

Although the precise contours of the Court of Appeals’ review in this case are somewhat unclear, the decision below again presents to this Court the unresolved question of the standard of review to be applied by courts reviewing an agency decision not to prepare an EIS. I have noted before the divergent standards of review invoked by the various Courts of Appeals in this context, see Gee v. Boyd, 471 U. S. 1058, 1059 (1985) (dissenting from denial of certiorari), and I will not again detail the alignment of the lower courts here. I reiterate, however, my previously expressed view that “[t]his conflict is not merely semantic or academic”: The courts that invoke the abuse-of-discretion or arbitrary-and-capricious standard emphasize that the decision is committed to the agency’s discretion and expertise; the courts that invoke the reasonableness standard, in contrast, stress the non-discretionary nature of NEPA’s language. Id., at 1060. Because this conflict among the Circuits raises a significant question as to the proper interpretation of a federal statute, because this question recurs regularly, and because I believe that the issue is not merely one of semantics, I would grant certiorari to resolve the issue.