Fiedler v. Clark’s Empirical Analysis
714 F.2d 77 · 1983
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 8 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently March 2025 · most notably Marathon Oil Company v. United States Cook Inlet Region Inc (1986), Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. California State Board of Equalization (1988)
16 federal appellate · 8 district · 1 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
Applies 21 U.S.C. § 301 (Animal Drug Amendments of 1968) · 21 U.S.C. § 332 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2201 · 7 U.S.C. § 136 (Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act of 1972) · 7 U.S.C. § 1361 · 7 U.S.C. § 136N
Relies on Cort v. Ash · Skelly Oil Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co. · Mansfield Ry Co v. Swan · California v. Sierra Club · Nathan S. Smith v. Arthur R. Grimm and Jeannine Grimm
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[A] fundamental requirement in applying the doctrine of negligence per se is that the party asserting negligence per se be a member of the class intended to be protected by the statute or regulation.” Courts considering whether to recognize negligence per se based on violation of broad environmental and public health statutes and regulations such as FIFRA have approached this issue by determining whether, in enacting the statute, the legislature intended to create a private right of action.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“does not provide an independent jurisdictional basis for suits in federal court. It only permits the district court to adopt a specific remedy when jurisdiction exists.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“legislative history confirms that Congress did not intend to create a private cause of action under FIFRA,”
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.