Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 497 F.3d 262 - Karpova v. Snow

Karpova v. Snow’s Empirical Analysis

497 F.3d 262 · 2007

Citation profile

39
cited by 39 later decisions
1
states following
June 2025
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently June 2025 · most notably Chase Group Alliance LLC v. City of New York Department of Finance (2010), 591 F. Supp. 2d 567 - Monterroso v. Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP (2008)

4 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

200200720102020decided

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. § 287 (United Nations Environment Program Participation Act of 1973) · 5 U.S.C. § 706 · 50 U.S.C. § 1701 (International Emergency Economic Powers Act)

Relies on Mathews v. Eldridge · Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. · Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of United States Inc v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company Consumer Alert · Withrow v. Larkin · Zemel v. Rusk

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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “has relied on factors which Congress has not intended it to consider, entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency, or is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[S]o long as the agency examines the relevant data and has set out a satisfactory explanation including a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made, a reviewing court will uphold the agency action, even a decision that is not perfectly clear, provided the agency’s path to its conclusion may reasonably be discerned.”
    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.