Derby v. Bowen’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 district · 2 state decisions

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

1. “Another problem which has developed in the implementation of the Act has been the fact that courts have been divided on the meaning of “substantial justification.” Several courts have held correctly that “substantial justification” means more than merely reasonable. Because in 1980 Congress rejected a standard of “reasonably justified” in favor of “substantially justified,” the test must be more than mere reasonableness. Especially puzzling, however, have been statements by some courts that an administrative decision may be substantially justified under the Act even if it must be reversed because it was arbitrary and capricious or was not supported by substantial evidence. Agency action found to be arbitrary and capricious or unsupported by substantial evidence is virtually certain not to have been substantially justified under the Act.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Rodriguez v. Bowen · 664 F. Supp. 1320 - Oliveira v. Bowen

2. “As a general rule, a post facto statement of congressional intent regarding previously-enacted legislation is not necessarily definitive.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In Re Jones