Charles Coles Diggs v. George P. Shultz, Secretary of Treasury’s Empirical Analysis
470 F.2d 461 · 1972
Citation profile
37 federal appellate · 6 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 59 later decisions — most recently November 2013 · most notably Ralpho v. Bell (1977), Committee of United States Citizens Living in Nicaragua v. Reagan (1988)
37 federal appellate · 6 district ·
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 22 U.S.C. § 287C · 50 U.S.C. § 98 (National Defense Stockpile Amendments of 1987)
Relies on Baker v. Carr · Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. Camp · Flast v. Cohen · Massachusetts v. Mellon · Edye v. Robertson
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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Congress can denounce treaties if it sees fit to do so, and there is nothing the other branches of government can do about it.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“These broadly stroked provisions obviously do not specify particular individuals or groups to be served by the loan assistance program. The statute speaks to socio-economic interests of the peoples of Latin America. However, the requirement for standing is only that the asserted interest be arguably within the zone of interests sought to be protected. Certainly the economy of a country is dependent upon the stability of local business enterprises such as CONCICA. Suffice it to say that the challenging party need only show that it is an intended beneficiary of the statute not necessarily the primary one.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“United Nations Security Council Resolution 232 was and is an attempt by means of concerted international pressure to turn the Rhodesian Government away from the course of action which has resulted in the adverse circumstances experienced by appellants. They are unquestionably within the reach of its purpose and among its intended beneficiaries.”
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.