Little v. Traynor’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently January 2025
13 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.
Relationships
Applies 5 U.S.C. § 556 (Administrative Procedure Act of 1946)
Relies on Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe · Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Harris v. McRae · Federal Communications Commission v. National Citizens Committee for Broadcasting · Colorado Ground Water Commission v. Eagle Peak Farms, Ltd.
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Subsection 1 of the statute broadly directs a court in “any civil judicial proceeding” between a nonadministrative party and an agency to award the nonadministrative party reasonable attorney fees and costs “if the court finds in favor of that party and, in the case of a final agency order, determines that the administrative agency acted without substantial justification.” (Emphasis added). By limiting the “without substantial justification” requirement to cases of a “final agency order,” the Legislature recognized attorney fees and costs could be awarded to a nonadministrative party who prevails in some instances without having to show an absence of substantial justification for the agency’s action. This case did not involve a final agency order rendered by an agency acting in an adjudicatory, quasi-judicial capacity, see Lamplighter Lounge, Inc. v. State, 523 N.W.2d 73, 74-75 (N.D.1994), and the district court correctly ruled no showing of an absence of substantial justification was necessary. The Legislature clearly evidenced its intention attorney fees and costs could be awarded to a nonadministrative party in some instances where the court simply “finds in favor of that party.” The Bureau’s motion for leave to pursue discovery and the resulting request for attorney fees were clearly an intertwined part of this rulemaking appeal. The language of the statute does not limit payment of attorney fees and costs to instances where the nonadministrative party prevails on the und”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“1. The provisions of [N.D.C.C. ch. 28-32] have not been substantially complied with in the agency’s rulemak-ing actions. 2. A rule published as a result of the rulemaking action appealed is unconstitutional on the face of the language adopted. 3. A rule published as a result of the rulemaking action appealed is beyond the scope of the agency’s authority to adopt. 4. A rule published as a result of the rulemaking action appealed is on the face of the language adopted an arbitrary or capricious application of authority granted by statute.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“In any civil judicial proceeding involving as adverse parties an administrative agency and a party not an administrative agency or an agent of an administrative agency, the court must award the party not an administrative agency reasonable attorney’s fees and costs if the court finds in favor of that party and, in the case of a final agency order, determines that the administrative agency acted without substantial justification.”
1 later decision 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.