6 canonical passages across 5 cases, quoted by 19 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side — they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Davis v. Mineta.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Davis v. Mineta Anchor | green | “a properly drafted ea must include a discussion of appropriate alternatives to the proposed project.” | 4 |
| 2 | Colorado Environmental Coalition v. Dombeck | green | “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” | 3 |
| 3 | Utah Environmental Congress v. Bosworth Ex Rel. Forest Service | green | “the regulations anticipate application of 219.19 to project level as well as plan level management actions.” | 3 |
| 4 | Utah Environmental Congress v. Bosworth Ex Rel. Forest Service | green | “to effectuate its mis monitoring duties under the language of its regulations, the forest service must gather quantitative data on actual mis populations that allows it to estimate the effects of any forest management activities on the animal population trends, and determine the…” | 3 |
| 5 | Airport Neighbors Alliance, Inc. v. United States | green | “in deciding whether the agency acted arbitrarily by not considering certain alternatives, we remain mindful that an agency decision concerning which alternatives to consider is necessarily bound by a rule of reason and practicality.” | 3 |
| 6 | Sierra Club v. Martin | green | “that the regulations refer to the formulation of forest plans rather than to specific projects proposed under already enacted forest plan” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment — for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.