Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 113 F.3d 1061 - R.T. Vanderbilt Co. v. Babbitt

R.T. Vanderbilt Co. v. Babbitt’s Empirical Analysis

113 F.3d 1061 · 1997

Citation profile

31
cited by 31 later decisions
1
states following
March 2023
most recently cited

16 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently March 2023 · most notably Idaho Watersheds Project v. Hahn (2002), Kildare

16 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions

1301997200020102020decided

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 Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Landgraf v. USI Film Products · Best v. Humboldt Placer Mining Co. · Benson Mining & Smelting Co. v. Alta Mining & Smelting Co. · Marino v. Vasquez

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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “(1) the plaintiff's claim is clear and certain; (2) the [defendant official's] duty is ministerial and so plainly prescribed as to be free from doubt; and (3) no other adequate remedy is available.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “We have twice rejected an argument that ... the rights to the patents vest upon application.... [N]o rights [in a patent claim] vest before the Secretary has decided whether to contest the patent claim. Upon confirmation that the application is proper, equitable title is treated as having vested on the payment date. Equitable title is not definitively acquired when payment is made.”
    1 later decision 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.