230 U.S. App. D.C. 164 - Bargmann v. Helms’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
16 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 5 U.S.C. § 701 · 5 U.S.C. § 706
Relies on Federal Election Commission v. Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee · National Association for Advancement of Colored People v. Federal Power Commission · Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Securities & Exchange Commission · Action for Children's Television v. Federal Communications Commission · WWHT, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“within the meaning of the 1958 Act. 14 Indeed, we find the FAA's contrary view somewhat difficult to square with its position, and with that of the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB), in a related CAB rulemaking in 1980. In that proceeding, a virtually identical petition for rulemaking was filed with the CAB by several of the same parties who are petitioners in the present case. Although the CAB denied the petition, it did so because it believed the rulemaking should have been properly conducted by the FAA,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Bargmann v. Helms“see 29 Fed.Reg. 19,206 (1964), there were no indications that the agency believed itself to be without authority to focus on more general, inflight medical emergencies in the future. This was made evident in 1973 when the FAA revised its first-aid kit rule in light of an agency study of turbulence accidents (which certainly produced”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Bargmann v. Helms“Comments were also received which recommended the adoption of [230 U.S.App.D.C. 168] requirements for first-aid equipment and crew-member training that are considered outside of the scope of the Notice concerning this amendment. However, those comments may be considered in future FAA regulatory action.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Bargmann v. Helms
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.