United States v. Meyer’s Empirical Analysis
808 F.2d 912 · 1987
Citation profile
31 federal appellate · 11 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 65 later decisions — most recently August 2023 · most notably Kelly v. United States (1991), United States v. Wiegand (1987)
31 federal appellate · 11 district · 4 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 15 U.S.C. § 2069 (Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 15 U.S.C. § 56 (Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914) · 28 U.S.C. § 2401 · 28 U.S.C. § 2462 · 28 U.S.C. § 791 · 30 U.S.C. § 801 (Black Lung Benefits Act of 1972)
Relies on Consumer Product Safety Commission v. GTE Sylvania, Inc. · Caminetti v. United States · Yates v. United States · Burnett v. New York Central Railroad · American Tobacco Co. v. Patterson
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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a]t bottom, ... comprise nothing more or less than decisions to bring suit.... Were the statute of limitations to run ... the Commission would have only its own indecision to blame.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“after the administrative proceeding has ended, a penalty has been assessed, and the violator has failed to pay the penalty.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In a situation like that at bar, when the [DOC] issues a charging letter, the imperatives of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) come into play. From that point on, the timing of the case is largely beyond the Department's control. Additionally, regulations which implement the APA's adjudicatory rules, designed to ensure procedural fairness, afford the private litigant a wide range of protections during the administrative processing of his case.... At the time of this case's administrative development, there were no temporal constraints governing the duration of these pre-hearing proceedings; no limits existed as to the time administrative adjudication might take, or as to when an ALJ had to render his decision. Moreover, even after the ALJ has issued an initial decision, the [DOC] cannot necessarily sue to enforce the resultant penalty; the respondent enjoys a right of appeal to the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Trade Administration. These kinds of procedures necessarily take time; indeed, in the instant case, administrative activity consumed over three years.”
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.