Case Citator › Sierra Club v. Hodel

Sierra Club v. Hodel

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

Overruled in part
Court
Tenth Circuit
Citation
848 F.2d 1068
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
42 of 42
Citing cases (total)
42
Treatment dates
1992
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. Sierra Club v. Hodel was overruled in part on the standard for reviewing an agency's finding of no significant environmental impact. All 42 flagged citations have been read.
More on how this was screened

The Tenth Circuit's en banc ruling in Village of Los Ranchos de Albuquerque v. Marsh is listed below. That court adopted arbitrary and capricious review for this issue; it expressly left open the standard for reviewing whether a project involves major federal action. Later opinions continued to apply Hodel's other holdings.

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.

42 later cases cite Sierra Club v. Hodel; 42 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 Sierra Club v. Hodel?

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

Overruled in part

  • The Tenth Circuit sitting en banc overruled Hodel's reasonableness standard for reviewing an agency finding that a project lacks significant environmental impact and needs no environmental impact statement.

    Village of Los Ranchos de Albuquerque v. Marsh · Tenth Circuit (en banc) · filed

    To the extent that our prior cases held that a reasonableness standard of review should be used, see Hodel, 848 F.2d at 1089; Park County Resource Council, Inc., 817 F.2d at 621 & n. 4; Hunt, 749 F.2d at 1468; League of Women Voters, 730 F.2d at 584-85; Brandon, 725 F.2d at 563; Jette, 579 F.2d at 64; Butz, 484 F.2d at 1248-49, they are inconsistent with Marsh, 490 U.S. at 375-77, 109 S.Ct. at 1860-61, and we now overrule such holdings.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Sierra Club v. Hodel 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