Telecommunications Research & Action Center v. Federal Communications Commission’s Empirical Analysis
750 F.2d 70 · 1984
Citation profile
283 federal appellate · 137 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 642 later decisions — most recently October 2024 · most notably Browning v. Levy (2002), Sierra Club v. Thomas (1987)
283 federal appellate · 137 district · 3 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 · 28 U.S.C. § 1361 · 28 U.S.C. § 1631 · 28 U.S.C. § 1651 · 28 U.S.C. § 2342 · 28 U.S.C. § 2347 · 47 U.S.C. § 204 · 47 U.S.C. § 205
Relies on Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner · Califano v. Sanders · Kerr v. United States Dist. Court for Northern Dist. of Cal. · McKart v. United States · Leedom v. Kyne
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 642 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the time agencies take to make decisions must be governed by a rule of reason; (2) where Congress has provided a timetable or other indication of the speed with which it expects the agency to proceed in the enabling statute, that statutory scheme may supply content for this rule of reason; (3) delays that might be reasonable in the sphere of economic regulation are less tolerable when human health and welfare are at stake; (4) the court should consider the effect of expediting delayed action on agency activities of a higher or competing priority; (5) the court should also take into account the nature and extent of the interests prejudiced by delay; and (6) the court need not find any impropriety lurking behind agency lassitude in order to hold that agency action is unreasonably delayed.”
84 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed.”
19 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Because the statutory obligation of a Court of Appeals to review on the merits may be defeated by an agency that fails to resolve disputes, a Circuit Court may resolve claims of unreasonable delay in order to protect its future jurisdiction.”
11 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.