National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Califano’s Empirical Analysis
622 F.2d 1382 · 1980
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 13 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently July 2016 · most notably Gillis v. United States Department of Health & Human Services (1985), Retired Chicago Police Ass'n v. City of Chicago (1996)
16 federal appellate · 13 district · 2 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 Warth v. Seldin · Baker v. Carr · Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. · Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. Camp · Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Unless the legislative history shows the plaintiff to be clearly not within the "zone of interests,” a court should demand no more than a sensible relation between some object of the statute and plaintiffs interest in the outcome of the litigation.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A plaintiff has standing to obtain review of agency action if he has suffered a “legal wrong,” or, if not, he has been otherwise “adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute.” ... [A] legal wrong is an invasion of a “legal right,” that is, “one of property, one arising out of contract, one protected against tortious invasion, or one founded on a statute which concerns a privilege.” Tennessee Power Co. v. T.V.A., 306 U.S. 118, 137-138 , 59 S.Ct. 366, 369 , 83 L.Ed. 543 (1939). ****** [Adversely affected] means “arguably within the zone of interest to be protected or regulated by the statute ... in question.” [Data Processing Service v. Camp,] 397 U.S. 150, 153 , 90 S.Ct. [827] at 830 [ 25 L.Ed.2d 184 ] [1970],”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“We hold that when an association does not have standing in its own right, and it is not clear which side of the lawsuit the association’s members would agree with, one or more members must openly declare their support of the association stance, and they must do so through those officials authorized to bring suit on their behalf. Moreover, if more members of the association declare against the association’s position than declare in favor of it, the association does not have standing, for then the parties in the lawsuit most likely would not be adverse.”
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.