Levers v. Anderson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

56 federal appellate · 6 district · 16 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 145 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “No other language of the regulations, and no satisfactory proof of publicly established practice under them, persuades us that the `may' means must * * *.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Darby v. Cisneros · Malone Freight Lines, Inc. v. United States

2. ““Whatever might be the case in other circumstances, it is clear that where, as here, judicial review is provided in the Act itself, the petitioner’s right of appeal to the courts is to be determined by looking to the statute, the valid regulations promulgated pursuant to it and proven administrative practice throwing light upon their meaning. In construing the Act, however, we must be mindful of the ‘long settled rule of judicial administration that no one is entitled to judicial relief for a supposed or threatened injury until the prescribed administrative remedy has been exhausted.’ [Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp. (1938), 303 U.S. 41, 50-51 , 82 L. Ed. 638, 644 , 58 S. Ct. 459, 463 ]. But this rule does not automatically require that judicial review must always be denied where rehearing is authorized but not sought. This is shown by our past decisions [United States v. Abilene & Southern Ry. Co. (1924), 265 U.S. 274, 280-82 , 68 L. Ed. 1016, 1019-20 , 44 S. Ct. 565, 567 ; Prendergast v. New York Telephone Co. (1923), 262 U.S. 43, 48-49 , 67 L. Ed. 853, 857 , 43 S. Ct. 466, 468-69 ], from which we see no reason to depart. Government counsel, appearing for respondent, do not defend the dismissal of petitioner’s appeal on such a sweeping assumption. On the contrary, they assert that motions for rehearing before the same tribunal that enters an order are under normal circumstances mere formalities which waste the time of litigants and tribunals, tend unnecessarily to pro”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 184 Ill. App. 3d 1 - City of Springfield v. Carter

3. ““(a) * * * Within 20 days after an order is made by the Commissioner or district supervisor revoking a basic permit, the permittee may file ’an application with such Commissioner or district supervisor, for a reconsideration of such order, on one or more of the following grounds: “(1) The order is contrary to law, or “(2) Is not supported by the evidence, or “(3) Because of newly discovered evidence which the permittee, with due diligence, was unable to produce at the hearing.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Cuiffo v. United States