Stewart v. Rood’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently September 2021
21 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 42 U.S.C. § 6901 (Federal Facility Compliance Act of 1992) · 5 U.S.C. § 1001 · 5 U.S.C. § 551 (Administrative Procedure Act of 1946)
Relies on Carnegie v. United States · Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City · Agins v. City of Tiburon · Jacoway v. Anderson · Martin Theatres of Texas, Inc. v. Bullock
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We believe the process referred to in the definition for individual proceeding in the [APA] is spelled out at §§ 309-317 of that Act and these sections, by their terms, afford opportunity for a trial-type proceeding. .... In that § 318 only allows judicial review of final orders (including permits) in an individual proceeding we believe the Legislature intended such judicial review under the [APA] only when an opportunity is afforded for the trial-type proceedings spelled out in the [APA].”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““[w]here a word or phrase is used in different parts of a statute or act it will be presumed to have the same meaning throughout; and where its meaning in one instance is clear, this meaning will apply elsewhere therein, unless it plainly appears from the whole statute the Legislature intended to use it in a different sense.” Stewart v. Rood, 796 P.2d 321, 329, n. 12 (Okla.1990).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[The term individual proceeding refers to only one process and it has only one meaning, to wit: the trial-type process delineated by the Legislature in §§ 309-317 of the [OAPA] and only when opportunity for such process is required by separate statutory or constitutional mandate will judicial review be appropriate under the OAPA.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.