United States v. Troup’s Empirical Analysis
821 F.2d 194 · 1987
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently March 2013
8 federal appellate · 1 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. § 1291 · 30 U.S.C. § 1231 · 30 U.S.C. § 1232 · 30 U.S.C. § 1276
Relies on New York v. Ferber · School Board of Richmond v. State Board of Education · Gemelli v. Pennsylvania · Watt v. Holmes Limestone Co · Getty Oil Company Eastern Operations) v. Ruckelshaus
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A lack of subject matter jurisdiction goes to the very power of a court to hear a controversy;... [the] earlier case can be accorded no weight either as precedent or as law of the case.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The word “shall” is a mandatory, not permissive, form and indicates a congressional intent to require judicial review of regulations having nationwide application occur in the federal district court for the District of Columbia. The result is neither absurd nor wholly impracticable. A rational basis can be conceived for centralizing review of national regulations. Congress may have had a particular desire to foster uniformity in the interpretations of these regulations. Congress’ provisions in other statutes for a single avenue of review and the subsequent enactment of this statute suggest that limiting review to one court is not impracticable.”
1 later decision 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.