Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 111 F.3d 172 - Frizelle v. Slater

Frizelle v. Slater’s Empirical Analysis

111 F.3d 172 · 1997

Citation profile

137
cited by 137 later decisions
1
states following
August 2022
most recently cited

16 federal appellate · 84 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 137 later decisions — most recently August 2022 · most notably George E. Cone, Jr. v. Louis Caldera, Secretary of the Army, (2000), Piersall v. Winter (2006)

16 federal appellate · 84 district · 2 state decisions

6801997200020102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of United States Inc v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company Consumer Alert · Bowman Transportation, Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc. · Chappell v. Wallace · Service v. Dulles · DelCostello v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 137 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “In practice, however, the question whether a particular action is arbitrary or capricious must turn on the extent to which the relevant statute, or other source of law, constrains agency action. While the broad grant of discretion implicated here does not entirely foreclose review of the Secretary’s action, the way in which the statute frames the issue for review does substantially restrict the authority of the reviewing court to upset the Secretary’s determination. It is simply more difficult to say that the Secretary has acted arbitrarily if he is authorized to act “when he considers it necessary to correct an error or remove an injustice,” 10 U.S.C. § 1552 (a) (emphasis added), than it is if he is required to act whenever a court determines that certain objective conditions are met, i.e., that there has been an error or injustice.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “correct any military record of the Secretary's department when the Secretary considers it necessary to correct an error or remove an injustice.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[a] reviewing court will uphold a decision of less than ideal clarity if the agency's path may reasonably be discerned.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.