Chen v. General Accounting Office’s Empirical Analysis
821 F.2d 732 · 1987
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 10 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently November 2008 · most notably Price v. Symsek (1993), Carlisle Area School v. Scott P. ex rel. Bess P. (1995)
14 federal appellate · 10 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 31 U.S.C. § 753 · 31 U.S.C. § 755 · 5 U.S.C. § 551 (Administrative Procedure Act of 1946) · 5 U.S.C. § 557 (Administrative Procedure Act of 1946) · 5 U.S.C. § 7701
Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine · Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board · Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States · Greater Boston Television Corporation v. Federal Communications Commission, Whdh, Inc., a Massachusettscorporation, Intervenor. Whdh, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, Greater Boston Televisioncorporation, a Massachusetts Corporation, Intervenor. Charles River Civic Television, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, Whdh, Inc., Boston Broadcastersinc., Intervenors. Whdh, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, Boston Broadcasters, Inc., Intervenor. Greater Boston Tv Co., Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, Whdh, Inc., Boston Broadcastersinc., Intervenors
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The reviewing court shall ... hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be— (A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (B) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity; (C) in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations ...; (D) without observance of procedure required by law; (E) unsupported by substantial evidence ...; or (F) unwarranted by the facts to the extent that the facts are subject to trial de novo by the reviewing court.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“) seeks review of a decision of the General Accounting Office (”
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.