City of Chicago v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
1969
Citation profile
88 federal appellate · 17 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 206 later decisions (13 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2007 · most notably National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. National Assn. of Railroad Passengers (1974), Southern Railway Company v. Seaboard Allied Milling Corp (1979)
88 federal appellate · 17 district ·
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 28 U.S.C. § 1253 · 28 U.S.C. § 1336 · 5 U.S.C. § 551 (Administrative Procedure Act of 1946)
Relies on Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner · Rochester Telephone Corporation v. United States · Cooper-Jarrett, Inc. v. United States · Clark Walter & Sons, Inc. v. United States
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 206 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An order of the Commission dismissing a complaint on the merits and maintaining the status quo is an exercise of administrative function, no more and no less, than an order directing some change in status. The nature of the issues foreclosed by the Commission’s action and the nature of the issues left open, so far as the reviewing power of courts is concerned, are the same.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Whether the commission should make an investigation of a § 13a(1) discontinuance is of course within its discretion, a matter which is not reviewable New Jersey v. United States, [D.C.] 168 F.Supp. 324 , aff’d, 359 U.S. 27 [ 79 S.Ct. 603 , 3 L.Ed.2d 625 ]” 396 U.S. at 165 , 90 S.Ct. at 311 .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““[W]e hold that the Postmaster-General’s refusal to grant the appellant a postage refund is not subject to judicial review. Section 4055 provides that the Postmaster General ‘may’ grant a refund only after it is shown to the satisfaction of the Postmaster-General that a refund is justified. The express language of the statute indicates that this decision is committed to the discretion of the Postmaster-General. Since the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701 (a) prohibits judicial review of agency action ‘committed to agency discretion by law,’ we are without power to review the Postmaster-General’s decision denying a postage refund.””
2 later decisions 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.