Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 491 F.2d 63 - Montrose Chemical Corporation of California v. Russell E. Train, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Montrose Chemical Corporation of California v. Russell E. Train, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency

Montrose Chemical Corporation of California v. Russell E. Train, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Montrose Chemical Corporation of California v. Russell E. Train, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency’s Empirical Analysis

491 F.2d 63 · 1974

Citation profile

216
cited by 216 later decisions
8
states following
February 2023
most recently cited

81 federal appellate · 56 district · 12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 216 later decisions — most recently February 2023 · most notably Mead Data Central, Inc. v. United States Department of Air Force (1977), Jordan v. United States Department of Justice (1978)

81 federal appellate · 56 district · 12 state decisions

700197419801990200020102020decided

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

Relies on Environmental Protection Agency v. Mink · United States v. Morgan · Vaughn v. Rosen · Morgan v. United States · Morgan 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 216 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “'not the function of the court to probe the mental processes'”
    15 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Our solution rests on the interpretation of the purpose of .exemption 5. If the exemption is intended to protect only deliberative materials then a factual summary of evidence on the record would not be exempt from disclosure. But if the exemption is to be interpreted to protect the agency’s deliberative process, then a factual summary prepared to aid an administrator in resolution of a difficult, complex question would be within the scope of the exemption. 7”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “an improper probing of the mental processes behind the decision of an agency”
    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.