Fox v. Clinton’s Empirical Analysis
684 F.3d 67 · 2012
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 26 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 5 U.S.C. § 501 · 5 U.S.C. § 553 (Administrative Procedure Act of 1946) · 5 U.S.C. § 702 · 5 U.S.C. § 706 · 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (§ 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1481 (§ 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of United States Inc v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company Consumer Alert · Skidmore v. Swift & Co. · United States v. Mead Corp. · Christensen v. Harris County
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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“if the agency has relied on factors which Congress has not intended it to consider, entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency, or is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“fundamentally deferential-especially with respect to matters relating to an agency's areas of technical expertise.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“not purport to set policy for future ... determinations,”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.