Willapoint Oysters, Inc. v. Ewing’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

102 federal appellate · 16 district · 19 state decisions

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

1. ““Rule-making is legislation on the administrative level, i. e., legislation within the confines (standard) of the granting statute as required by the Constitution and its doctrines of non-delegability and separability of powers. Section 2(c) of the Administrative Procedure Act, supra, defines rule-making as the ‘agency process for the formulation, amendment, or repeal’ of agency statements of: “ ‘general or particular applicability and future effect designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy * * *.’ “This is not novel reasoning but an explanation of existing concept and must be so construed. The legislative process i. e., rule-making, is normally directed primarily at ‘situactions,’ rather than particular persons. Individual protestations of injury are normally and necessarily lost in the quantum of the greater good. “Adjudication, defined by section 2(d) of the Administrative Procedure Act as any action other than rule-making ,but including licensing, comports with the judicial function. Its primary concern is with individual rights, liabilities for past conduct, or present status under existing law, and tends to be accusative and disciplinary in nature.””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. George A. Rheman Company v. United States · Air Line Pilots Ass'n v. Quesada

2. ““The degrees of probative force and reliability of hearsay evidence are infinite in variation, and its use by administrative bodies, ex necessitate, must in part be governed by the relative unavailability of other and better evidence. However, since “substantial evidence” includes more than “uncorroborated hearsay” and “more than a mere scintilla,” the findings, to be valid, cannot be based upon hearsay alone, nor upon hearsay corroborated by a mere scintilla. Founded upon these requirements, the test whether evidence is “sub-tantial,” is whether, in the individual case before the court, there is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion”,”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Jacobowitz v. United States · Williams v. Haurigan

3. “... since “substantial evidence” includes more than “uncorroborated hearsay” and “more than a mere scintilla,” the findings, to be valid, cannot be based on hearsay alone, nor upon hearsay corroborated by a mere scintilla. Founded upon these requirements, the test whether evidence is “substantial,” is whether, in the in dividual case before the court, there is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 346 F. Supp. 1217 - Jaeger v. Stephens · National Labor Relations Board v. Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America