Hoffler v. Hagel’s Empirical Analysis
2015
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 10 U.S.C. § 628 · 28 U.S.C. § 1491 · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 717 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 5 U.S.C. § 702 · 5 U.S.C. § 704 · 5 U.S.C. § 706
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Richardson v. Perales · Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of United States Inc v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company Consumer Alert
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]n reviewing agency action, the court must “consider whether the decision was based on a consideration of the relevant factors and whether there has been a clear error of judgment.” Fort Sumter Tours, Inc. v. Babbitt, 66 F.3d 1324, 1335 (4th Cir. 1995) (quotation omitted); see Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of the U.S. Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 463 U.S.29, 43, 103 S.Ct. 2856 , 77 L.Ed.2d 443 (1983). The “inquiry into the facts is to be. searching and careful,” but “the ultimate standard of review is a narrow one. The court is not empowered to substitute its judgment for that of the agency.” Babbitt, 66 F.3d at 1335 (quotation omitted).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.