Lewis-Mota v. Secretary of Labor’s Empirical Analysis
469 F.2d 478 · 1972
Citation profile
77 federal appellate · 17 district · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 169 later decisions — most recently April 2019 · most notably Pickus v. United States Board of Parole (1974), Batterton v. Marshall (1980)
77 federal appellate · 17 district · 13 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 5 U.S.C. § 551 (Administrative Procedure Act of 1946) · 5 U.S.C. § 552 (Freedom of Information Act) · 5 U.S.C. § 553 (Administrative Procedure Act of 1946) · 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (§ 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on National Labor Relations Board v. Wyman-Gordon Co. · Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. United States · Diffenderfer v. Central Baptist Church of Miami, Florida, Inc. · Texaco, Inc. v. Federal Power Commission
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 169 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he label that the particular agency puts upon its given exercise of administrative power is not, for our purposes, conclusive; rather it is what the agency does in fact.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(b) General notice of proposed rule making shall be published in the Federal Register, * * * Except when notice .or hearing is required by statute, this subsection does not apply— (A) to interpretative rules, general statements of policy, or rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice; .”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We find that the Directive changed existing rights and obligations by requiring aliens of the class of appellants to submit proof of specific job offers as well as a statement of their qualifications; it thereby made it more difficult for employers to fill vacancies in the occupations no longer precertified. By virtue of this substantial impact both upon the aliens and employers, notice and opportunity for comment by the public should first be provided.”
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.