Ralpho v. Bell’s Empirical Analysis
569 F.2d 607 · 1977
Citation profile
96 federal appellate · 19 district · 16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 190 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2023 · most notably Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Schor (1986), Ruiz v. Estelle (1982)
96 federal appellate · 19 district · 16 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
Relies on Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Mathews v. Eldridge · Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner · Goldberg v. Kelly · Buckley v. Valeo
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 190 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]f legislation by Congress purporting to prevent judicial review of the constitutionality of its own actions is itself constitutionally suspect, legislation that frees an administrative agency from judicial scrutiny of its adherence to the dictates of the Constitution must pose grave constitutional questions as well.”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Carter v. Cleland · Ungar v. Smith“propose 'to secure order, system and dispatch in proceedings' ....”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[C]ourts have assumed it less likely that Congress intended to prohibit review of a claim that the activities of an agency are facially invalid than of “the numerous discretionary, factual, and mixed law-fact determinations” normally underlying an agency’s decision-making process. This assumption reflects not only reluctance to license “free-wheeling agencies meting out their own brand of justice,” but also a nice appreciation, presumably shared by Congress, that courts of law possess peculiar expertise in statutory interpretation. So judges have generally looked past the language of finality provisions to see how far Congress desired to muzzle the courts and unleash the agency, and will normally disregard “basically lawless” agency' action only when clearly instructed to do so.”
3 later decisions 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.