Air Line Pilots Ass'n, International v. Civil Aeronautics Board’s Empirical Analysis
750 F.2d 81 · 1984
Citation profile
42 federal appellate · 23 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 88 later decisions — most recently December 2022 · most notably Telecommunications Research & Action Center v. Federal Communications Commission (1984), Sierra Club v. Thomas (1987)
42 federal appellate · 23 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1631 · 28 U.S.C. § 1651 · 47 U.S.C. § 204 · 5 U.S.C. § 555 (Administrative Procedure Act of 1946) · 5 U.S.C. § 706
Relies on Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner · McKart v. United States · Association of National Advertisers, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission · Southern Railway Co. v. North Carolina · Telecommunications Research & Action Center 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 88 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; (6) the court need not ‘find any impropriety lurking behind agency lassitude in order to hold that agency action is unreasonably delayed.’”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[C]laims of unreasonable delay fall within the narrow class of interlocutory appeals from agency action over which we appropriately should exercise our jurisdiction. By definition, a claim of unreasonable delay cannot await final agency action before judicial review, since it is the very lack of agency action which gives rise to the complaint. It is also obvious that the benefits of agency expertise and creation of a record will not be realized if the agency never takes action. In addition, judicial review of claims of unreasonable delay do not prematurely inject the courts into the agency’s consideration of the merits of the issue before it. Finally, agencies operate under a mandate to decide matters in a reasonable time, (footnote omitted) and Congress has instructed statutory review courts to compel agency action which has been unreasonably delayed (footnote omitted).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“in aid of their prospective jurisdiction.”
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.