Houston Business Journal, Inc. v. Office of Comptroller of Currency’s Empirical Analysis
86 F.3d 1208 · 1996
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 21 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 67 later decisions — most recently January 2024 · most notably Akinseye v. District of Columbia (2003), Schism v. United States (2002)
23 federal appellate · 21 district · 5 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
Relies on Hickman v. Taylor · Insurance Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie Des Bauxites De Guinee · United States v. Morton Salt Co. · United States Touhy v. Ragen · Idaho v. Wright
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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“When a litigant seeks to obtain documents from a non-party federal governmental agency, the procedure varies depending on whether the underlying litigation is in federal or in state court. In state court the federal government is shielded by sovereign immunity, which prevents the state court from enforcing a subpoena.... Moreover, a court cannot enforce a subpoena against an employee of the federal governmental agency when the agency has validly enacted a regulation ... that withdraws from employees the power to produce documents.... Thus, a state-court litigant must request the documents from the federal agency pursuant to the agency’s [Touhy ] regulations .... If the agency refuses to produce the requested documents, the sole remedy for the state-court litigant is to file a collateral action in federal court under the APA.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A] state-court litigant must request the documents from the federal agency pursuant to the agency's regulations .... If the agency refuses to produce the requested documents, the sole remedy for the state-court litigant is to file a collateral action in federal court under the APA.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“a state-court litigant must request the documents from the federal agency pursuant to the agency's regulations,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.