Frey v. Commodity Exchange Authority’s Empirical Analysis
547 F.2d 46 · 1976
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently January 1990 · most notably National Labor Relations Board v. Superior Forwarding, Inc. (1985), General Finance Corporation v. Federal Trade Commission (1983)
9 federal appellate · 1 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 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1361 · 5 U.S.C. § 702 · 5 U.S.C. § 704 · 7 U.S.C. § 1 (CFTC Reauthorization Act of 1995) · 7 U.S.C. § 15 · 7 U.S.C. § 9
Relies on Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp. · McKart v. United States · Sampson v. Murray · Leedom v. Kyne · Renegotiation Board v. Bannercraft Clothing Co.
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“long-settled rule of judicial administration that no one is entitled to judicial relief for a supposed or threatened injury until the prescribed administrative remedy has been exhausted.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Obviously the administrative proceeding here had not progressed to a hearing. Who knows whether the Administrative Law Judge will find the evidence sufficient to sustain the charges, or whether the Secretary will agree with him if he does? If the final order were favorable to appellees, the present contentions , would be moot. Once the hearing be completed, the devices suggested by the Administrative Law Judge may have proved adequate, or events at the hearing may demonstrate a need for the inquiry desired by appellees, and persuade the Administrative Law Judge to follow a procedure which will satisfy them. “Until administrative action has become final, no court is in a position to say that such action did or did not conform to applicable regulations.” Assuming a final order, adverse to appellees, and that they continue to contend that denial of discovery prejudiced their defense, such denial may be reviewed along with review of the final action. As is true in much litigation, correction of a procedural error on ultimate appeal will not avoid duplication of effort. But, “[m]ere litigation expense, even substantial and unrecoupable cost, does not constitute irreparable injury.” Id. at 49 (Citations omitted).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“For the purpose of this appeal, we conclude only that this statute [ 49 U.S.C. § 12 ], and the implementing regulations, do not confer upon such parties so clear a right to conduct discovery as to warrant judicial interference when discovery is denied by interlocutory order of the agency. Id. at 50 (Footnote omitted).”
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.