Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 502 F.2d 79 - Bachowski v. Brennan

Bachowski v. Brennan’s Empirical Analysis

502 F.2d 79 · 1974

Citation profile

52
cited by 52 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
June 2018
most recently cited

18 federal appellate · 6 district · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 52 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2018 · most notably Heckler v. Chaney (1985), Dunlop v. Bachowski (1975)

18 federal appellate · 6 district · 5 state decisions

22019741980199020002010decided

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.

Appellate journey

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1337 · 29 U.S.C. § 481 · 29 U.S.C. § 482 · 29 U.S.C. § 483 · 29 U.S.C. § 504 · 29 U.S.C. § 526 · 5 U.S.C. § 551 (Administrative Procedure Act of 1946) · 5 U.S.C. § 555 (Administrative Procedure Act of 1946)

Relies on Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe · Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner · Vaca v. Sipes · Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation · Camp v. Pitts

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

  1. “[Section] 482(b) of the L-MRDA provides that after investigating a complaint, [the Secretary] must determine whether there is probable cause to believe that violations of § 481 have occurred affecting the outcome of the election. Where a complaint is meritorious and no settlement has been reached which would remedy the violations found to exist, the language and purpose of § 402(b) indicate that Congress intended the Secretary to file suit. Thus, apart from the possibility of settlement, the Secretary's decision whether to bring suit depends on a rather straightforward factual determination, and we see nothing in the nature of that task that places the Secretary’s decision “beyond the judicial capacity to supervise.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action or proceeding arising under any Act of Congress regulating commerce . . .”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[T]he legislative history of the LMRDA demonstrates a deep concern with the interest of. the individual union member, as well as the general public, in the integrity of union elections. Thus, in seeking to remedy violations of the Act, the Secretary acts not only for the benefit of the country as a whole, but also on behalf of those individuals whose rights have been infringed. To grant-the Secretary absolute discretion in this situation seems particularly inappropriate, for if he wrongfully refuses to file suit, individual union members are left without a remedy.”
    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.