Martin v. Lauer’s Empirical Analysis
740 F.2d 36 · 1984
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently May 2009 · most notably Federal Election Commission v. Rose (1986), Hirschey v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (1985)
15 federal appellate · 5 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 28 U.S.C. § 2412 · 28 U.S.C. § 294 · 42 U.S.C. § 1988 · 5 U.S.C. § 2301 (Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002) · 5 U.S.C. § 2302 · 5 U.S.C. § 552 (Freedom of Information Act) · 5 U.S.C. § 552A (§ 3 of the Privacy Act of 1974)
Relies on Hensley v. Eckerhart · Pickering v. Board of Education of Township High School District 205 Will County Illinois · Members of the City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent · Shelton v. Tucker · Baggett v. Bullitt
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We are convinced that many of the considerations expounded in Spencer [v. NLRB, 712 F.2d 539 (D.C.Cir.1983) ] favor separate determinations as to the substantial justification for the defendants’ position at each level. By judging the substantiality of the government’s position in the particular proceeding at issue, courts will encourage the government to determine whether to appeal based on the facts and law pertinent to that appeal. Further, this approach will induce the government to ‘evaluate carefully each of the various claims’ it might make on appeal and ‘assert only those that are substantially justified. The net result would be more sensitive and effectual promotion of the objectives of the EAJA.’”
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.