Montgomery County v. Stevens’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
87 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 87 later decisions — most recently August 2019 · most notably Goodwich v. Nolan (1996), Coleman v. Anne Arundel County Police Department (2002)
87 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 Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe · Camp v. Pitts · Withrow v. Larkin · Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion
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 87 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) it must conclusively determine the disputed question; (2) it must resolve an important issue; (3) it must be completely separate from the merits of the action; and (4) it must be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. In re Damon M. · Osborn v. Bunge““[t]he mere exposure to evidence presented in nonadversary investigative procedures is insufficient in itself to impugn the fairness of the Board members at a later adversary hearing. * -1: * “It is ... very typical for the members of administrative agencies to receive the results of investigations, to approve the filing of charges or formal complaints instituting enforcement proceedings, and then to participate in the ensuing hearings. This mode of procedure does not violate the Administrative Procedure Act, and it does not violate due process of law.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“We pointed out in Public Service Comm’n v. Patuxent Valley, supra, 300 Md. at 214 , 477 A.2d 759 , ... that it is “a fundamental principle of administrative law ____ that a party challenging agency action is ordinarily forbidden from inquiring into the mental processes of an administrative official.” See United States v. Morgan, 313 U.S. 409 , 422 61 S.Ct. 999, 1004-1005 , 85 L.Ed. 1429, 1435 (1941) (holding that, in an action for judicial review of a decision by the Secretary of Agriculture, the trial court erred in permitting the plaintiffs to take the Secretary’s deposition, because the “proceeding before the Secretary ‘has a quality resembling that of a judicial proceeding’ ... Such an examination of a judge would be destructive of judicial responsibility.... Just as a judge cannot be subjected to such scrutiny ... So the integrity of the administrative process must be equally respected”). Accord: Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 420 , 91 S.Ct. 814, 825 , 28 L.Ed.2d 136, 155-156 (1971); 3 Davis, Administrative Law Treatises, § 17.7 (2d ed.1980). See also, Montrose Chemical Corporation of California v. Train, 491 F.2d 63, 68-70 (D.C.Cir. 1974). Departure from this fundamental principle is extremely rare. In Public Service Comm’n v. Patuxent Valley, supra, this Court mentioned one possible limited exception. We explained that if the party challenging the agency action could make a “strong showing” of, as opposed to a mere allegation of, the existenc”
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.