Kristensen v. McGrath’s Empirical Analysis
179 F.2d 796 · 1949
Citation profile
28 federal appellate · 10 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 63 later decisions (9 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 1998 · most notably Heikkila v. Barber (1953), McGrath v. Kristensen (1950)
28 federal appellate · 10 district · 3 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
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2201 · 5 U.S.C. § 1001 · 5 U.S.C. § 1009
Relies on Estep v. United States · Bridges v. Wixon · Crane v. Commissioner · Manhattan General Equipment Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue · Stark v. Wickard
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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the Administrative Procedure Act's judicial review section was not intended to perpetuate preexisting rigidities in the use of extraordinary legal remedies but rather to simplify and make more flexible the avenues to judicial relief.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Every agency action made reviewable by statute and every final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in any court shall be subject to judicial review.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The form of proceeding for judicial review is the special statutory review proceeding relevant to the subject matter in a court specified by statute or, in the absence or inadequacy thereof, any applicable form of legal action, including actions for declaratory judgments or writs of prohibitory or mandatory injunction or habeas corpus, in a court of competent jurisdiction. If no special statutory review proceeding is applicable, the action for judicial review may be brought against the United States, the agency by its official title, or the appropriate officer. Except to the extent that prior, adequate, and exclusive opportunity for judicial review is provided by law, agency action is subject to judicial review in civil or criminal proceedings for judicial enforcement. [ 5 U.S.C. § 703 (emphasis added)].”
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.