470 F. Supp. 2d 1064 - Singh v. Still’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
7 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently July 2024
7 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 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1361 · 5 U.S.C. § 555 (Administrative Procedure Act of 1946) · 8 U.S.C. § 1103 (§ 103 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1105 (§ 105 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1427 (§ 316 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Patel v. Reno · 36 F. Supp. 2d 922 - Yue Yu v. Brown · 76 F. Supp. 2d 896 - Paunescu v. Immigration & Naturalization Service
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the time agencies take to make decisions must be governed by a “rule of reason;” (2) where Congress has provided a timetable or other indication of the speed with which it expects the agency to proceed in the enabling statute, that statutory scheme may supply content for this rule of reason; (3) delays that might be reasonable in the sphere of economic regulation are less tolerable when human health and welfare are at stake; (4) the court should consider the effect of expediting delayed action on agency activities of a higher or competing priority; (5) the court should also take into account the nature and extent of the interests prejudiced by delay; and (6) the court need not "find any impropriety lurking behind agency lassitude in order to hold that agency action is 'unreasonably delayed.' ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[wjith due regard for the convenience and necessity of the parties or their representatives and within a reasonable time, each agency shall proceed to conclude a matter presented to it.” 9 . There is, of course, a point at which delay cannot be justified under the”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[a]t the hearing ... Respondents conceded that they have a mandatory duty to act on [Petitioner’s I-485] applications”). 4 . As noted above, section 706(1) of the APA states that courts”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.