Farkas v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently July 2012 · most notably Kimberlin v. White (1993), 879 F. Supp. 2d 60 - Cole v. Fulwood (2012)
1 federal appellate · 3 district ·
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 Truong Dinh Hung v. United States · B.D. International Discount Corp. v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. · Goldstein v. Garrity · Scanwell Laboratories, Inc. v. John H. Shaffer, Administrator (Acting) of the Federal Aviation Administration · Twin Parks Ltd. Partnership v. N.S.C. Contractors, Inc.
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“This statutory restriction [over review of individual parole decisions] does not preclude either the district court or this court, however, from considering a claim that the guidelines for exercising discre tion as promulgated and applied, violate the intent and directives of the Parole Act. Such an inquiry into the legality of agency action, as opposed to its appropriateness within legal bounds, is ‘uniquely appropriate for judicial determination.’”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Under 18 U.S.C. § 4218 (d) 3 , the Parole Commission’s substantive decision to grant or deny parole is an action “committed to agency discretion” under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701 (a)(2), and thus is insulated from judicial review. It is clear, therefore, that Congress intended to commit these substantive decisions to the unreviewable discretion of the Commission, (citation omitted) (footnote added).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Kimberlin v. White“Although the guidelines on their face appear to be mechanical computations, they are in fact “merely guidelines” from which the Commission is free to depart for good cause. 28 C.F.R. § 2.20 (c).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Kimberlin v. White
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.