Pitts v. Camp’s Empirical Analysis
463 F.2d 632 · 1972
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 12 U.S.C. § 36 · 5 U.S.C. § 702
Relies on Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. Camp · Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation · Federal Trade Commission v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co. · First National Bank of Smithfield, North Carolina v. James J. Saxon, Comptroller of the Currency of the United States, First National Bank of Smithfield, North Carolina v. First National Bank of Eastern North Carolina · First-Citizens Bank & Trust Co. v. Camp
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is unnecessary, we think, to discuss the separate assignments of error ascribed by the appellants to the District Court. This is because in itself the ruling of the Comptroller is unacceptable. It does not comply with the bare, fundamental principle of agency decision: that its basis must be stated. FTC v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co., 405 U.S. 233 , 92 S.Ct. 898 , 31 L.Ed.2d 170 (1972). Sperry reiterated the precept of SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80, 94 , 63 S.Ct. 454 , 87 L.Ed. 626 (1943), that ‘[t]he orderly functioning of the process of review requires that the grounds upon which the administrative agency acted be clearly disclosed’ .... Indeed, the review of the agency action, and relief from any error therein, assured by sections 10(a), (b), and (e)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S. C. §§ 702, 703 and 706(2), would be impossible without a statement of such grounds. That the judicial review provisions of the Act apply to the Comptroller is unmistakably written in Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150, 156-157 , 90 S.Ct. 827 , 25 L.Ed.2d 184 (1970). * * * -X- -X- * “Since the Comptroller has twice inadequately and inarticulately resolved the appellants’ presentation, we remand the cause for a trial de novo before the District Court rather than to the Comptroller for further consideration.””
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.