Dong v. Smithsonian Institution’s Empirical Analysis
125 F.3d 877 · 1997
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 15 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently March 2024 · most notably Paul Forman, v. Lawrence M. Small, Secretary, Smithsonian Institution, (2001), Jones v. American Postal Workers Union, National (1999)
12 federal appellate · 15 district · 4 state decisions
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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from District of Columbia District Court)
Relationships
Applies 20 U.S.C. § 41 (National Museum Act of 1966) · 20 U.S.C. § 42 · 20 U.S.C. § 43 · 20 U.S.C. § 49 · 20 U.S.C. § 53 · 20 U.S.C. § 79B · 20 U.S.C. § 81 · 28 U.S.C. § 2671
Relies on Buckley v. Valeo · Morrison v. Olson · Soucie v. David · Federal Land Bank of St. Paul v. Bismarck Lumber Co. · Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority v. Citizens for the Abatement of Aircraft Noise, Inc.
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“authority of the Government of the United States”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"agency” as defined in section 551(1) of this title includes any executive department, military department, Government corporation, Government controlled corporation, or other establishment in the executive branch of the Government (including the Executive Office of the President), or any independent regulatory agency.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“normally does not introduce an exhaustive list,' but concluding that 'includes' as used in the federal Privacy Act was a limiting term where the Act provided that the term 'agency' 'includes' multiple specified categories without any 'general principle in sight'”
2 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.