Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 421 F.3d 1350 - Timken U.S. Corp. v. United States

Timken U.S. Corp. v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

421 F.3d 1350 · 2005

Citation profile

63
cited by 63 later decisions
October 2025
most recently cited

17 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently October 2025 · most notably NMB Singapore Ltd. v. United States (2009), Versata Development Group, Inc. v. SAP America, Inc. (2015)

17 federal appellate ·

340200520102020decided

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 Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of United States Inc v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company Consumer Alert · Bowman Transportation, Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc. · Camp v. Pitts · National Cable & Telecommunications Assn. v. Brand X Internet Services

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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Normally, an agency [decision] would be arbitrary and capricious if the agency has relied on factors which Congress has not intended it to consider, entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency, or is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “We apply anew the standard of review applied by the Court of International Trade in its review of the administrative record. We therefore uphold the Commission's determination unless it was arbitrary and capricious or unsupported by substantial evidence on the record, or otherwise not in accordance with law.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “law does not require that an agency make an explicit response to every argument made by a party, but instead requires that issues material to the agency's determination be discussed so that the path of the agency may reasonably be discerned by a reviewing court,”
    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.