Hoyl v. Babbitt’s Empirical Analysis
129 F.3d 1377 · 1997
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 13 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently June 2020 · most notably Lamb v. Thompson (2001), Federal Lands Legal Consortium v. United States (1999)
21 federal appellate · 13 district ·
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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 30 U.S.C. § 181 (Coal Market Competition Act of 2000) · 30 U.S.C. § 207 · 30 U.S.C. § 209 · 5 U.S.C. § 701 · 5 U.S.C. § 702
Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Headrick v. Rockwell International Corp. · Clouser v. Espy · Diaz-Resendez v. Immigration & Naturalization Service
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We need not decide, however, whether Plaintiff had a protected property interest in a 39 suspension, because even assuming Plaintiff had a right to due process regarding the suspension, the process afforded by the IBLA and later by the district court satisfies any such right.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Evidence is generally substantial under the APA if it is enough to justify, if the trial were to a jury, refusal to direct a verdict on a factual conclusion.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“`arbitrary, capricious, otherwise not in accordance with the law, or not supported by substantial evidence.'”
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.