Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 924 F.2d 282 - Armstrong v. Bush

Armstrong v. Bush’s Empirical Analysis

924 F.2d 282 · 1991

Citation profile

121
cited by 121 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
April 2021
most recently cited

46 federal appellate · 39 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 121 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2021 · most notably Franklin v. Massachusetts (1992), Marshall County Health Care Authority v. Shalala (1993)

46 federal appellate · 39 district · 1 state decisions

5001991200020102020decided

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. § 1292 · 28 U.S.C. § 591 · 44 U.S.C. § 2101 · 44 U.S.C. § 2106 · 44 U.S.C. § 2201 · 44 U.S.C. § 2203 · 44 U.S.C. § 2901 · 44 U.S.C. § 2902

Relies on Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe · Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner · Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. Camp · Camp v. Pitts · Heckler v. Chaney

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

  1. “documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion thereof, created or received by the President, his immediate staff, or a unit or individual of the Executive Office of the President whose function is to advise and assist the President, in the course of conducting activities which relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President.”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “if the agency head or Archivist does nothing while an agency official destroys or removes records in contravention of agency guidelines and directives, private litigants may bring suit to require the agency head and Archivist to fulfill their statutory duty to notify Congress and ask the Attorney General to initiate legal action”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “appropriate for preservation ... as evidence of [the government's] organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, operations or other activities,”
    7 later decisions 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.