Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 888 F.2d 1258 - Abela v. Gustafson

Abela v. Gustafson’s Empirical Analysis

888 F.2d 1258 · 1989

Citation profile

51
cited by 51 later decisions
February 2013
most recently cited

18 federal appellate · 2 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently February 2013 · most notably Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Farmer Bros. (1994), Cummings v. Sullivan (1991)

18 federal appellate · 2 district ·

2901989199020002010decided

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. § 2412 · 5 U.S.C. § 504 (Equal Access to Justice Act) · 8 U.S.C. § 1447 (§ 336 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))

Relies on Pierce v. Underwood · Tutun v. United States · Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Pangilinan · George L. Barry v. Otis R. Bowen · Smith v. Block

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

  1. “evaluate the basic arguments the Government put forth.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[c]onceivably, the Government could take a position that is not substantially justified, yet win; even more likely, it could take a position that is substantially justified, yet lose.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The fact that Defendants prevailed on every motion except for the TRO indicates that their litigation positions were substantially justified. In addition, Defendant’s underlying actions that gave rise to this litigation had a reasonable basis in both law and fact. The FFE decisions were based on detailed Biological Opinions prepared by the Service, which included provisions for reinitiating consultation in light of new information.”
    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.