Nader v. Saxbe’s Empirical Analysis
497 F.2d 676 · 1974
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 12 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2021 · most notably Dunlop v. Bachowski (1975), Fund for Constitutional Government v. National Archives & Records Service (1981)
12 federal appellate · 12 district · 6 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 1 U.S.C. § 109 · 18 U.S.C. § 3282 · 2 U.S.C. § 431 (§ 301 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971) · 2 U.S.C. § 438 (§ 311 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971) · 2 U.S.C. § 441 · 28 U.S.C. § 294
Relies on Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner · Baker v. Carr · Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. Camp · Flast v. Cohen · Sierra Club v. Morton
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Executive’s constitutional duty to ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,’ Art. II, § 3, applies to all laws, not merely to criminal statutes, see In re Neagle, 135 U.S. 1, 63-64 , 10 S.Ct. 658 , 34 L.Ed. 55 (1890). It would seem to follow that the exercise of prosecutorial discretion, like the exercise of Executive discretion generally, is subject to statutory and constitutional limits enforceable through judicial review (citations omitted). The law has long recognized the distinction between judicial usurpation of discretionary authority and judicial review of the statutory and constitutional limits to that authority (citations omitted). Judicial review of the latter sort is normally available unless Congress has expressly withdrawn it (citations omitted) 497 F.2d at 679, 680, fn. 19.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“It would seem to follow that the exercise of prosecutorial discretion, like the exercise of Executive discretion generally, is subject to statutory and constitutional limits enforceable through judicial review. The law has long recognized the distinction between judicial usurpation of discretionary authority and judicial review of the statutory and constitutional limits to that authority. Judicial review of the latter sort is normally available unless Congress has expressly withdrawn it. (citations omitted).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The instant complaint does not ask the court to assume the essentially Executive function of deciding whether a particular alleged violator should be prosecuted. Rather, the complaint seeks a conventionally judicial determination of whether certain fixed policies allegedly followed by the Justice Department and the United States Attorney’s office lie outside the constitutional and statutory limits of ‘prosecutorial discretion.’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hourigan v. Carter
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.