The Timken Company v. William E. Simon, Secretary of the Treasury’s Empirical Analysis
539 F.2d 221 · 1976
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently June 2013 · most notably National Corn Growers Ass'n v. Baker (1988), 505 F. Supp. 1125 - Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. (1980)
14 federal appellate · 4 district ·
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 Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe · Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner · Yi Au Lau v. United States Immigration & Naturalization Service · Texas Gulf Sulphur Co. v. Securities & Exchange Commission · Power Reactor Development Co. v. International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“would not hesitate to reverse the District Court's assertion of jurisdiction in this case.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Based on the statutory language alone, we would conclude as does Timken, that the “until the further order of the Secretary” language was intended to cover only those situations in which the Secretary is unable to publish a dumping finding, either because the Secretary had reached a negative LTFV determination (and therefore has not referred the complaint to the Commission), or because the Commission has concluded that the relevant United States industries are neither being nor are likely to be injured by the LTFV sales. If a dumping finding is not to be published, continued withholding of appraisement as a provisional remedy is unnecessary, and the Secretary therefore has authority to terminate the withholding notice under those circumstances. (Emphasis in original.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Customs Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction of civil actions instituted by any person whose protest pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, has been denied, in whole or in part, by the appropriate customs officer, where the administrative decision, including the legality of all orders and findings entering into the same, involves: . . (2) the classification and rate and amount of duties chargeable; .”
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.