Gardner v. Moon’s Empirical Analysis
360 F.2d 556 · 1966
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently August 1981
11 federal appellate · 2 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 National Labor Relations Board v. Fant Milling Co. · Bomer v. Ribicoff · Langford v. Flemming · Angiulo v. Mullins
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.
““In our view, the sole question for decision is whether the Secretary’s determination that claimant had failed to show good cause for an extension of time to request a hearing constituted an abuse of discretion. ****** “The regulations do not spell out the criteria or factors to be applied in resolving the question of good cause. But whether or not a claimant has made an adequate showing of good cause is clearly a matter addressed to the sound discretion of the administrative agency. We believe that Judge Brown has aptly stated the applicable principle in Langford v. Flemming, 276 F.2d 215, 219 (5 Cir. 1960): “ ‘Good cause by its very nature calls for the evaluation of many subtle factors. Here Congress has given the task to the administrative agency experienced in dealing with claims to decide this in the first instance. And in the absence of an abuse of discretion, we must be bound by the administrative determination “ * * * even though the court would justifiably have made a different choice had the matter been before it de novo.” See N. L.R.B. v. Fant Milling Co., 1959, 360 U.S. 301, 309 , 79 S.Ct. 1179, 1184 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1243 .’ “Courts cannot properly direct or compel an extension of time by the Secretary absent an abuse of discretion or arbitrary or unreasonable action. Rosen v. Celebrezze, D.C.N.D. New York, [ 254 F.Supp. 280 ] CCH Unemployment Insurance Reporter, Para. 16, 133 (Jan. 22, 1964), and cf., Bomer v. Ribicoff, 304 F.2d 427 (6 Cir. 1962). *«■-»*** “Perhaps t”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Thomas v. Gardner
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.