Bentley v. Chastain’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
60 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 61 later decisions — most recently July 2024 · most notably Bowman v. City of York (1992), Tibbles v. Teachers Retirement System of Georgia (2015)
60 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
Relies on Federal Radio Commission v. General Electric Co. · Department of Natural Resources v. Linchester Sand & Gravel Corp. · Barrett v. Hamby · Olley Valley Estates, Inc. v. Fussell · Guhl v. Davis
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 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A]gencies provide a high level of expertise and an opportunity for specialization unavailable in the judicial or legislative branches. They are able to use these skills, along with the policy mandate and discretion entrusted to them by the legislature, to make rules and enforce them in fashioning solutions to very complex problems.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“'[t]his dual role which administrative agencies play has long been accepted in this State as being constitutionally permissible. (Cits.) However, this authority is not the same and, therefore, is distinguishable from the exercising of the "judicial powers”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]he focus of the courts in reviewing administrative decisions should be to evaluate the extent of discretion delegated to that agency and to see that the agency acts within the limits of its discretion in order to protect individuals against the unnecessary and uncontrolled use of that power. . . . Therefore, the only review authorized is that inherent in the power of the judiciary: [wjhether the agency acted beyond the discretionary powers conferred upon it, abused its discretion, or acted arbitrarily or capriciously with regard to an individual’s constitutional rights. 22”
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.