Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 611 F.2d 710 - West v. Bergland

West v. Bergland’s Empirical Analysis

611 F.2d 710 · 1979

Citation profile

108
cited by 108 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
4
states following
November 2015
most recently cited

52 federal appellate · 15 district · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 108 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2015 · most notably McCarthy v. Madigan (1992), Pet v. Department of Health Services (1988)

52 federal appellate · 15 district · 6 state decisions

49019791980199020002010decided

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 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 21 U.S.C. § 610 · 7 U.S.C. § 1621 (Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946) · 7 U.S.C. § 1622 · 7 U.S.C. § 1624 · 7 U.S.C. § 203 · 7 U.S.C. § 246 · 7 U.S.C. § 499H

Relies on Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner · Weinberger v. Salfi · Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp. · Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill · McKart v. United States

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

  1. “[A]dministrative remedies need not be pursued if the litigant's interests in immediate judicial review outweigh the government's interests in the efficiency or administrative autonomy that the exhaustion doctrine is designed to further.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “(1) whether allowing similarly situated litigants to bypass the administrative avenue would seriously impair the agency’s ability to perform its function of developing facts and exercising discretion in the first instance; (2) whether allowing judicial review would encourage others to flout the administrative scheme designed by Congress; and (3) whether the circumstances require that the agency be given the first chance to correct its own errors, and to obviate, perhaps, the need for judicial review.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “frequent and deliberate flouting of the administrative process.”
    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.