Schicke v. Romney’s Empirical Analysis
474 F.2d 309 · 1973
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently April 2019
6 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 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 42 U.S.C. § 1500 · 42 U.S.C. § 1500C · 5 U.S.C. § 706
Relies on Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe · Subin v. Goldsmith · Schicke 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““leaves in doubt whether the regional staff itself ever saw anything in the nature of a comprehensive plan or whether they merely relied on statements by local officials. Furthermore, the remainder of the administrative record is silent on this matter. Nowhere in the documents submitted to the district court is there a copy of any comprehensive plan, a statement of what the plan contains, or a reference to where it is to be found. “At oral argument we asked counsel for appellees what the plan consisted of and they were unable to inform us. It was only in a supplemental memorandum submitted by the City of Nor-walk, dated December 12, 1972, that the first faint glimmer of light was shed on this matter. It appears that a single comprehensive plan for Nor-walk does not exist, but that there are a series of master plans, such as the Master Plan of Parks, of Schools, of Transportation, as well as subdivision regulations and zoning regulations. Thus there is some question about whether these documents constitute a ‘comprehensive plan’ which meets the statutory criteria. Of course, without the plan itself and the Secretary’s detailed findings with respect to it, this court is in no position to decide this issue.” 474 F.2d at 317 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Schicke v. Lynn““. . . Since neither the substantial evidence test nor de novo review is authorized, a reviewing court is limited to setting aside informal agency action that does not comply with constitutional, statutory, or procedural requirements or is ‘arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he court must have before it the full administrative record which was before the agency and on which the agency determination was based.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Saget v. Trump
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.