Caswell v. Califano’s Empirical Analysis
583 F.2d 9 · 1978
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 22 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 84 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2012 · most notably Califano v. Yamasaki (1979), Lopez v. Heckler (1983)
26 federal appellate · 22 district · 4 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 Mathews v. Eldridge · Richardson v. Perales · Baker v. Carr · Califano v. Sanders · Weinberger v. Salfi
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 84 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“. [w]ith due regard for the convenience and necessity of the parties or their representatives and within a reasonable time, each agency shall proceed to conclude the matter presented to it. [a reviewing court shall] (1) compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It may well be that in certain cases legislative efforts to deal with a problem so clearly manifest Congress’ intent that its remedy be exclusive that further judicial relief would be inappropriate. However, such a clear intent to preempt the field is not present here. We cannot construe, as the Secretary urges, congressional concern with the delay problem as an expression of Congress’ belief that no problem really exists____ In any event, congressional action to date, far from reflecting a view that the delays complained of here are reasonable, in fact suggests that Congress believes the problem to be a serious one. And while we agree that Congress must bear the ultimate responsibility for remedying problems in the administration of federal programs, that does not mean that a judicial role is precluded where the statutory mandate is not being followed. The fact, moreover, that the courts seek to remedy the violation of a federal statute in no way precludes Congress from providing additional or different relief, or from clarifying or modifying the statute if the judicial interpretation is not approved. Finally, it is clear that no violence to the principle of the separation of powers arises from judicial efforts to enforce a congressional mandate.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed.”
2 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.