Sugarman v. Forbragd’s Empirical Analysis
405 F.2d 1189 · 1968
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently January 1999
7 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 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 267 F. Supp. 817 - Sugarman v. Forbragd
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“may appear before the [CPSC] and have the right to introduce testimony.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““In entering its order the Food and Drug Administration was acting for the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare pursuant to the terms of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. § 381 (a). The question presented is whether (absent arbitrary or capricious action which clearly is lacking here) such an order excluding material from import under § 381(a) is subject to judicial review. The District Court held that it was not. We agree. “Appellant contends that the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551-558 , 701-706, applies to require agency notice and hearing and provide judicial review. By the terms of that Act, § 701(a) (2), it is not to apply where ‘agency action is committed to agency discretion by law.’ -X- * * -X- ■ * •» “We note that the prescribed procedure suggests final discretionary authority in the Secretary. His judgment must be accepted and acted upon by the Secretary of the Treasury. Further, the language of the section ‘if it appears’ suggests discretion to be tested by a standard of arbitrariness rather than error.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The District Court held, and we agree, that to exclude imports, no formal hearing is required either by the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 21 U.S.C. § 381 (a), by the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551-558 , or by the Constitution, congressional power over foreign commerce being absolute.””
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.