Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 818 F.2d 943 - Community Nutrition Institute v. Young

Community Nutrition Institute v. Young’s Empirical Analysis

818 F.2d 943 · 1987

Citation profile

151
cited by 151 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
August 2023
most recently cited

66 federal appellate · 24 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 151 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2023 · most notably Lincoln v. Vigil (1993), American Hospital Ass'n v. Bowen (1987)

66 federal appellate · 24 district · 1 state decisions

50019871990200020102020decided

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 21 U.S.C. § 336 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 342 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 346 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 5 U.S.C. § 551 (Administrative Procedure Act of 1946) · 5 U.S.C. § 553 (Administrative Procedure Act of 1946)

Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner · Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Cardoza-Fonseca · Heckler v. Chaney · Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Chadha

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 151 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “genuinely leaves the agency and its decisionmakers free to exercise discretion.”
    17 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “the whole or a part of an agency statement of general or particular applicability and future effect designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy ...”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The distinction between legislative rules and interpretative rules or policy statements has been described at various times as 'tenuous,' Chisholm v. FCC , 538 F.2d 349 , 393 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 890 , 97 S.Ct. 247 , 50 L.Ed.2d 173 (1976), 'fuzzy,' Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. FPC , 506 F.2d 33 , 38 (D.C. Cir. 1974), 'blurred,' Saunders, Interpretative Rules With Legislative Effect: An Analysis and a Proposal for Public Participation , 1986 Duke L.J. 346 , 352, and, perhaps most picturesquely, 'enshrouded in considerable smog.”
    4 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.