Weinberger v. Rossi’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
225 federal appellate · 33 district · 16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 500 later decisions (25 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2022 · most notably Central Bank of Denver Na v. First Interstate Bank of Denver Na K (1994), Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp. (1989)
225 federal appellate · 33 district · 16 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedRossi v. Brown (from District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 16 U.S.C. § 1801 (American Fisheries Promotion Act) · 16 U.S.C. § 1802 · 1 U.S.C. § 112B · 22 U.S.C. § 1392 · 22 U.S.C. § 2551 (Arms Control and Disarmament Act) · 22 U.S.C. § 2573 · 39 U.S.C. § 407 · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Consumer Product Safety Commission v. GTE Sylvania, Inc. · Chrysler Corporation v. Brown · United States v. Universal C. I. T. Credit Corp. · McCulloch v. Sociedad Nacional De Marineros De Honduras · United States v. Pink
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 500 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The contemporaneous remarks of a sponsor of legislation are certainly not controlling in analyzing legislative history.”); 2A Norman J. Singer, Statutes and Statutory Construction (”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A]n act of congress ought never to be construed to violate the law of nations, if any other possible construction remains.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[O]ne isolated remark by a single Senator, ambiguous in meaning when examined in context, is insufficient to establish the kind of affirmative congressional expression necessary to evidence an intent....”
4 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.