Case Citator › Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe

Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Abrogated
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
401 U.S. 402
Decided
Confirmed treatments
3
Flagged citations read
837 of 837
Citing cases (total)
7,563
Treatment dates
1977–2026
Abrogated
A reviewed court treats this case as abrogated by later authority. Overton Park is abrogated in part on jurisdictional grounds and limited in two applications. Califano v. Sanders rejected Overton Park's assumption that the APA independently grants subject-matter jurisdiction.
More on how this was screened

Citizens to Preserve Wilderness Park, Inc. v. Adams and Renteria v. New Mexico Office of the Superintendent of Insurance confined separate aspects of Overton Park's Section 4(f) and mental-process discussions. All 837 flagged citations have been read, and the 3 confirmed treatments are listed below.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

7,563 later cases cite Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe; 837 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Abrogated

  • The Supreme Court rejected Overton Park's assumption that the APA independently grants subject-matter jurisdiction, holding that the APA supplies no implied jurisdictional grant.

    Califano v. Sanders · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    Three decisions of this Court arguably have assumed, with little discussion, that the APA is an independent grant of subject-matter jurisdiction. See Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U. S. 402, 410 (1971); Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U. S. 136, 141 (1967); Rusk v. Cort, 369 U. S. 367, 372 (1962). However, an Act of Congress enacted since our grant of certiorari in this case now persuades us that the better view is that the APA is not to be interpreted as an implied grant of subject-matter jurisdiction to review agency actions.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Limited

  • The court held that Overton Park does not prevent the Secretary from considering the amount and quality of parkland affected when deciding whether an alternative route is prudent under Section 4(f)(1).

    Citizens to Preserve Wilderness Park, Inc. v. Adams · District of Nebraska · filed

    It is true that any parkland in any amount triggers 4(f)(1) but once 4(f)(1) is triggered, neither the Act of Congress, nor the legislative history, nor the Supreme Court of the United States in Overton Park, supra, says that in deciding whether an alternate route is prudent it matters not a whit whether the alternate is an alternate to the taking of a square inch or a square mile. Neither does any say that all parkland must be pretended to have the same quality. In the greater scheme of things it cannot be so, not in exercising “discretionary” authority with “wisdom and reason.”
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The court treated Overton Park's strong-showing requirement for probing an administrative decisionmaker's mental processes as dicta limited to APA review and declined to extend it to a civil-rights action in which improper behavior was central.

    Renteria v. New Mexico Office of the Superintendent of Insurance · District of New Mexico · filed

    In a case brought pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, the United States Supreme Court stated in dicta that “where there are administrative findings that were made at the same time as the [agency] decision … there must be a strong showing of bad faith or improper behavior” before a party can inquire into a decisionmaker’s mental processes regarding the decision. Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 420 (1971), abrogated on other grounds by Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99 (1977). However, this statement has not been extended to civil rights actions in which the decisionmaker’s “improper behavior” is central to the plaintiff’s claims.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace