602 F. Supp. 2d 93 - Olson v. Clinton’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
3 district ·
Relationships
Applies 22 U.S.C. § 4140 · 5 U.S.C. § 706
Relies on Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe · Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of United States Inc v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company Consumer Alert · Camp v. Pitts · United States v. Abel · Small Refiner Lead Phase-Down Task Force v. United States Environmental Protection Agency
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“When a plaintiff alleges that an agency's decision suffers from procedural flaws that render its decision 'arbitrary and capricious,' he must show that procedural errors existed and that prejudice resulted from these errors.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“made only the conclusory argument that the [agency's] decision was 'tainted' by ex parte email communications that were not included in the Administrative Record”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Stewart v. Spencer“whether the decision was based on a consideration of the relevant factors and whether there has been a clear error of judgment.”
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.