Nader v. Volpe’s Empirical Analysis
466 F.2d 261 · 1972
Citation profile
57 federal appellate · 21 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 122 later decisions — most recently May 2017 · most notably Florida Peach Corp. v. Commissioner (1988), City of Rochester v. Bond (1979)
57 federal appellate · 21 district · 4 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.
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1391 (Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 1394 (Sherman Antitrust Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2112 · 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2341 · 5 U.S.C. § 552 (Freedom of Information Act) · 5 U.S.C. § 703 · 5 U.S.C. § 704
Relies on Consolidated Edison Co of New York v. National Labor Relations Board · Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner · United States v. Munsingwear, Inc. · Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp. · McKart 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 122 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If the petitioner applies to the court for leave to adduce additional evidence, and shows to the satisfaction of the court that such additional evidence is material and that there were reasonable grounds for the failure to adduce such evidence in the proceeding before the Secretary, the court may order such additional evidence (and evidence in rebuttal thereof) to be taken before the Secretary, and to be adduced upon the hearing, in such manner and upon such terms and conditions as to the court may seem proper. The Secretary may modify his findings as to the facts, or make new findings, by reason of the additional evidence so taken, and he shall file such modified or new findings, and his recommendation, if any, for the modification or setting aside of his original order, with the return of such additional evidence.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Independent Cosmetic Manufacturers & Distributors, Inc. v. United States Department of Health, Education & Welfare · Independent Cosmetic Manufacturers and Distributors, Inc. v. United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare, United States Food and Drug Administration and Donald Kennedy, Commissioner of Food and Drug Administration, Independent Cosmetic Manufacturers and Distributors, Inc. v. Joseph A. Califano, Jr., Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare“'judicial intervention in uncompleted administrative proceedings, as distinguished from judicial checking by statutorily-established method of review, must remain very much the exception rather than the rule.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The legislative history of the (National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety) Act is almost completely silent as to the exclusivity or concurrency of the review procedure which it specifies.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Independent Cosmetic Manufacturers & Distributors, Inc. v. United States Department of Health, Education & Welfare · Independent Cosmetic Manufacturers and Distributors, Inc. v. United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare, United States Food and Drug Administration and Donald Kennedy, Commissioner of Food and Drug Administration, Independent Cosmetic Manufacturers and Distributors, Inc. v. Joseph A. Califano, Jr., Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare
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.