Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 715 F.2d 638 - Bargmann v. Helms

Bargmann v. Helms’s Empirical Analysis

715 F.2d 638 · 1983

Citation profile

15
cited by 15 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
July 2017
most recently cited

9 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2017

9 federal appellate · 1 district ·

601983199020002010decided

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 Federal Election Commission v. Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee · National Association for Advancement of Colored People v. Federal Power Commission · Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Securities & Exchange Commission · Action for Children's Television v. Federal Communications Commission · WWHT, Inc. v. Federal Communications 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “attempt to limit artificially its regulatory authority ... unreasonable.” Bargmann v. Helms, 715 F.2d 638, 642 (D.C.Cir.1983) (Mikva, J.). We have been presented in the instant case, as we were in Bargmann , essentially with an agency's refusal to exercise its discretion, based on its belief that it has no power to do otherwise. In this situation, while the agency has the first word on its regulatory jurisdiction, it does not have the last. It is well within the tradition of our review of agency action ... to make an independent inquiry into an agency’s allegation that it lacks the statutory authority to act. Id. at 641 (citations omitted). See also Exxon Corp. v. FTC, 665 F.2d 1274 (D.C.Cir.1981); NAACP v. FPC, 520 F.2d 432 (D.C.Cir.1973), aff’d, 425 U.S. 662 , 96 S.Ct. 1806 , 48 L.Ed.2d 284 (1976); National Org. for Reform of Marijuana Laws v. Ingersoll, 497 F.2d 654 (D.C.Cir.1974). Where, as here, the agency’s own “first word”
    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.