US Association of Importers of Textiles and Apparel v. United States Department of Commerce M W US F US’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
How this case has been cited
Cited by 79 later decisions — most recently November 2023 · most notably 72 Fed. Cl. 126 - A & D Fire Protection, Inc. v. United States (2006), 74 Fed. Cl. 277 - Textron, Inc. v. United States (2006)
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 Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner · Federal Trade Commission v. Standard Oil Co. · Zenith Radio Corporation v. United States · Mikohn Gaming Corporation v. Acres Gaming Inc · Atari Games Corporation v. Nintendo of America Inc
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 79 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) immediate and irreparable injury to the movant; (2) the movant’s likelihood of success on the merits; (3) the public interest; and (4) the balance of hardship on all the parties.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“In this case, the Association cites a number of actions taken by its members allegedly in response just to [the government’s] decision to consider the twelve petitions. These actions were based on the businesses’ perceived uncertainty concerning whether, when, and to what extent import relief might be imposed in the future, but not on any legally binding requirement presently imposed by ... the government. In contrast, Abbott Laboratories involved a mandatory regulation with binding legal effect that was issued after formal notice and comment and that was utterly unambiguous. Thus, following [Federal Trade Commission v. Standard Oil Co. of California, 449 U.S. 232 , 101 S.Ct. 488 , 66 L.Ed.2d 416 (1980) ], we hold that any business uncertainty associated with awaiting a final decision from an agency is different in kind and legal effect from the hardship identified in Abbott Laboratories and insufficient to turn a threshold agency decision into a final agency action ripe for review.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“disagree [d] . . . that the jurisdictional arguments could be [completely] ignored in ruling on the Association’s preliminary injunction motion. The question of jurisdiction closely affects the Association’s likelihood of success on its motion for a preliminary injunction. Failing to consider it was legal error.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.