Andrade v. Lauer’s Empirical Analysis
729 F.2d 1475 · 1984
Citation profile
80 federal appellate · 42 district · 16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 179 later decisions — most recently March 2024 · most notably Jesinger v. Nevada Federal Credit Union (1994), Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency (1985)
80 federal appellate · 42 district · 16 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 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 42 U.S.C. § 3781 · 42 U.S.C. § 5611 (Mentoring Matches for Youth Act of 2006) · 42 U.S.C. § 5612 · 5 U.S.C. § 7103 · 5 U.S.C. § 7116 · 5 U.S.C. § 7121 · 5 U.S.C. § 7123
Relies on Mathews v. Eldridge · Warth v. Seldin · Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner · Baker v. Carr · Buckley v. Valeo
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 179 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1) Carries out legislative purpose in granting authority to an agency by discouraging frequent deliberate flouting of admmistra-tive procedure; 2) protects agency autonomy by' allowing the agency in the first instance to apply its expertise and correct its errors; 3) aids judicial review by allowing parties to develop material facts in agency proceedings; and 4) promotes judicial economy by avoiding repetition of judicial and administrative factfinding and perhaps the necessity for judicial involvement.”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“distinguishes between “collateral” attacks, in which plaintiffs attack government action on the ground that the officials who took the action were improperly in office, and “direct” attacks, in which plaintiffs attack the qualifications of the officer, rather than the actions taken by the officer.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“First, the plaintiff must bring his action at or around the time that the challenged government action is taken. Second, the plaintiff must show that the agency or department involved has had reasonable notice under all the circum stances of the claimed defect in the official’s title to office.”
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.