Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 390 F.2d 485 - Bamberger v. Clark

Bamberger v. Clark’s Empirical Analysis

390 F.2d 485 · 1968

Citation profile

30
cited by 30 later decisions
1
states following
March 2013
most recently cited

9 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently March 2013 · most notably Railway Labor Executives' Association v. United States Railroad Retirement Board, Drivers, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers, Local No. 71 v. National Labor Relations Board (1977)

9 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions

110196819701980199020002010decided

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

Applies 50 U.S.C. § 4331

Relies on Moses Lake Homes, Inc. v. Grant County · Die Deutsche Bank Filiale Nurnberg v. Humphrey · Hicks v. Guinness · Philadelphia Television Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission · Philadelphia Television Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications 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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Under rules now applicable a question of foreign law is treated in the Federal courts as calling for a ruling on a question of law rather than fact. That rule does not necessarily dispose of cases that arise in the context of an administrative record, since in some instances at least a court will defer to an agency’s view of a question of law even though the court itself would not have decided the question the same way if it had considered the matter in the first instance — assuming of course that the agency’s view is not unreasonable or contrary to the plainly ascertainable intent of the legislature. The doctrine of deference to the rulings of an administrative or executive agency, department or official has broadest scope when the legal question is one involving the meaning of a statute continually applied and interpreted by the executive branch. But it also has application to other issues, and certainly we would agree that in ascertaining the foreign law we pay careful attention to the expert testimony adduced at the agency hearing, and to the agency’s view. 390 F.2d at 488 (footnotes omitted).”
    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.