Montgomery County Maryland v. Department of Labor’s Empirical Analysis
757 F.2d 1510 · 1985
Citation profile
11 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently May 2006
11 federal appellate ·
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 29 U.S.C. § 1501 (Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act)) · 29 U.S.C. § 1591 (National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 801
Relies on United States v. Abel
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[r]ecord keeping is at the heart of the federal oversight and evaluation provisions of CETA and its implementing regulations. Only by requiring documentation to support expenditures is the DOL able to verify that billions of federal grant dollars are spent for the purposes intended by Congress.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Edmonds v. Chao“by failing to comply with the record-keeping requirements of CETA and its regulations, the County `misspent' federal funds within the meaning of the statute.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Edmonds v. Chao
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.