Murray v. Lyng’s Empirical Analysis
854 F.2d 303 · 1988
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 2 district ·
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 675 (§ 475 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 7 U.S.C. § 2012 · 7 U.S.C. § 2014
Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Southeastern Community College v. Davis · International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Daniel · Reagan v. Abourezk · Abourezk v. Reagan
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“When a court reviews an agency’s construction of the statute which it administers, it is confronted with two questions. First, always, is the question whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court, as well as the agency must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress. If, however, the court determines Congress has not directly addressed the precise question at issue, the court does not simply impose its own construction of the statute, as would be necessary in the absence of an administrative interpretation. Rather, if the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the question for the court is whether the agency’s answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Larry v. Yamauchi
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.