Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 canonical passages across 9 cases, quoted by 121 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 Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. Anchor | green | “when examining this kind of scientific determination ... a reviewing court must generally be at its most deferential.” | 43 |
| 2 | Kleppe v. Sierra Club | green | “resolving these issues requires a high level of technical expertise and is properly left to the informed discretion of the responsible federal agencies.” | 31 |
| 3 | Andrus v. Sierra Club | green | “ceq's interpretation of nepa is entitled to substantial deference.” | 17 |
| 4 | Oregon Environmental Council v. Leonard Kunzman | green | “the reviewing court may not 'fly speck' an eis and hold it insufficient on the basis of inconsequential, technical deficiencies.” | 13 |
| 5 | Association of Public Agency Customers, Inc. v. Bonneville Power Administration | green | “the 'no action' alternative may be thought of in terms of continuing with the present course of action until that action is changed.” | 5 |
| 6 | Russell Country Sportsmen v. United States Forest Service | green | “within the range of alternatives” | 3 |
| 7 | Robert W. Hall v. Gale A. Norton, Secretary of the Interior United States Department of the Interior | green | “our inquiry into the imminence of the threatened harm is less demanding,” | 3 |
| 8 | City of Las Vegas v. Federal Aviation Administration | green | “finding of no significant impact” | 3 |
| 9 | Douglas County v. Babbitt | green | “nepa provides that 'local agencies, which are authorized to develop and enforce environmental standards' may comment on the proposed federal action.” | 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.