Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 375 F.3d 301 - Humanoids Group v. Rogan

Humanoids Group v. Rogan’s Empirical Analysis

375 F.3d 301 · 2004

Citation profile

26
cited by 26 later decisions
September 2024
most recently cited

14 federal appellate · 2 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently September 2024 · most notably Bassiri v. Xerox Corp. (2006), IntraComm, Inc. v. Bajaj (2007)

14 federal appellate · 2 district ·

170200420102020decided

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 Friends of the Earth Incorporateds v. Laidlaw Environmental Services Inc · Auer v. Robbins · Christensen v. Harris County · Thomas Jefferson University v. Shalala · Martin v. Occupational Safety & Health Review 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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “`[A]gency interpretations that lack the force of law (such as those embodied in opinion letters and policy statements) do not warrant Chevron [ U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 , 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984)]-style deference when they interpret ambiguous statutes but do receive deference under Auer when interpreting ambiguous regulations. '”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Because the salary-basis test is a creature of the Secretary's own regulations, his interpretation of it is ... controlling unless `plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation.'”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “neither plainly compels nor clearly precludes [USA's] interpretation, ... its precise import is ambiguous and certainly not free from doubt.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.