Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 41 F.3d 1050 - Community First Bank v. National Credit Union Administration

Community First Bank v. National Credit Union Administration’s Empirical Analysis

41 F.3d 1050 · 1994

Citation profile

41
cited by 41 later decisions
2
states following
June 2020
most recently cited

22 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently June 2020 · most notably Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America v. Kevin Concannon Commissioner Maine Department of Human Services Maine Attorney General (2001), Children's Healthcare is Legal Duty, Inc. v. Deters (1996)

22 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions

1901994200020102020decided

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 12 U.S.C. § 1751 (Credit Union Amendments of 1987) · 12 U.S.C. § 1759 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 5 U.S.C. § 702 · 5 U.S.C. § 706

Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Rust v. Sullivan · Clarke v. Securities Industry Assn. · In re Disbarment of Gonzales · Robnett 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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[s]tanding is not an affirmative defense that must be raised at risk of forfeiture”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “the “zone of interest” test is a guide for deciding whether in view of Congress’ evident intent to make agency action presumptively reviewable, a particular plaintiff should be heard to complain of a particular agency decision. In eases where the plaintiff is not itself the subject of the contested regulatory action, the test denies a right of review if the plaintiff’s interests are so marginally related to or inconsistent with the purposes implicit in the statute that it cannot reasonably be assumed that Congress intended to per mit the suit. The test is not meant to be especially demanding; in particular, there need be no indication of congressional purpose to benefit the would-be plaintiff.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The NCUA's regulations defining 'community' (a clearly defined geographical area whose residents identify it as a distinct area) constitute a permissible definition of community.”
    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.