Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 570 F.2d 950 - Adams v. Vance

Adams v. Vance’s Empirical Analysis

570 F.2d 950 · 1978

Citation profile

104
cited by 104 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
April 2020
most recently cited

52 federal appellate · 11 district · 7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 104 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2020 · most notably United States v. Hubbard (1980), Ramirez de Arellano v. Weinberger (1984)

52 federal appellate · 11 district · 7 state decisions

550197819801990200020102020decided

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 16 U.S.C. § 1371 (§ 101 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972) · 16 U.S.C. § 1539 (§ 10 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973) · 16 U.S.C. § 916 (Whaling Convention Act of 1949) · 22 U.S.C. § 1978 · 25 U.S.C. § 280A · 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 43 U.S.C. § 1603

Relies on Baker v. Carr · Sampson v. Murray · Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer · United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. · United States v. Augenblick

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

  1. “'[W]hen the merits of a case are clearly against the party seeking to invoke the court's jurisdiction, the jurisdictional question is especially difficult and far-reaching, and the inadequacies in the ... briefing make the case a poor vehicle for deciding the jurisdictional question, we may rule on the merits without reaching' the jurisdictional contention.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “A request for an order directing action by the Secretary of State in foreign affairs plainly constitutes such an intrusion into the core concerns of the executive branch]. Court must beware “ignoring the delicacies of diplomatic negotiation, the inevitable bargaining for the best solution of an international conflict, and the scope which in foreign affairs must be allowed to the President.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Under some circumstances, having found that the District Court had applied the wrong test, we would remand for reconsideration in light of the correct test.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.