Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 698 F.2d 1239 - Community Nutrition Institute v. Block

Community Nutrition Institute v. Block’s Empirical Analysis

698 F.2d 1239 · 1983

Citation profile

92
cited by 92 later decisions
3
cited 3 times by the Supreme Court
January 2024
most recently cited

46 federal appellate · 14 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 92 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2024 · most notably Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment (1998), Block v. Community Nutrition Institute (1984)

46 federal appellate · 14 district ·

55019831990200020102020decided

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.

Appellate journey

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 5 U.S.C. § 553 (Administrative Procedure Act of 1946) · 5 U.S.C. § 554 (Administrative Procedure Act of 1946) · 7 U.S.C. § 602 · 7 U.S.C. § 608C (Food and Agriculture Act of 1965)

Relies on Warth v. Seldin · Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner · Baker v. Carr · Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc. · Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp.

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

  1. “'to prove that granting the requested relief is certain to alleviate' [its] injury.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[t]he fairly traceable causation inquiry is directed toward the connection between the injury and the defendant’s actions. The redressability inquiry, on the other hand, focuses on the connection between the injury and the action requested of the court. The fairly traceable causation requirement is therefore generally based on past or present occurrences (the effect of the defendant’s actions), while the redressability requirement is based on future probabilities (the effect of. the court’s decision). Of course, there is a correlation between the two elements. As the connection between the alleged injury and the defendant’s actions becomes more direct, the likelihood that requiring the defendant to change his behavior will redress that injury increases.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “negate every 'speculation and hypothetical possibilit[y] ... in order to demonstrate the likely effectiveness of judicial relief.'”
    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.