Conyers v. Rossides’s Empirical Analysis
558 F.3d 137 · 2009
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently March 2022 · most notably Arar v. Ashcroft (2009), Vanderklok v. United States (2017)
7 federal appellate · 2 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 49 U.S.C. § 114 · 49 U.S.C. § 40122 · 49 U.S.C. § 44935 · 50 U.S.C. § 403 (§ 102 of the National Security Act of 1947) · 5 U.S.C. § 3330A · 5 U.S.C. § 3330B · 5 U.S.C. § 3330C
Relies on Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe · Edelman v. Jordan · Bell v. Hood
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing’ that jurisdiction exists. Where, as here, the case is at the pleading stage and no evidentiary hearings have been held, however, in reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) we must accept as true all material facts alleged in the complaint and draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs favor. Nevertheless, even on a motion to dismiss, courts are not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Under Secretary of Transportation for Security may .employ, appoint, discipline, terminate, and fix the compensation, terms, and conditions of employment of Federal service for such a number of individuals as the Under Secretary determines to be necessary to carry out the screening functions of the Under Secretary under section 44901 of title 49, United States Code. The Under Secretary shall establish levels of compensation and other benefits for individuals so employed.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We need not decide whether APA review is unavailable with respect to all of the Administrator’s decisions regarding screener employment. We conclude here only that the specific “agency action” complained of by Conyers, namely, the Administrator’s decision not to utilize the FAA’s personnel management system in deciding whom to “employ” or “appoint” as a security screener, “is committed to agency discretion by” ATSA Section 111(d)' and, thus, is not reviewable under the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 701 (a).”
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.