925 F. Supp. 124 - Walker v. Reno’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 5 district ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 848 (§ 408 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 5 U.S.C. § 701
Relies on Scheuer v. Rhodes · Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner · United States v. Nixon · Bordenkircher v. Hayes · 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In this case, plaintiffs’ Complaint contains no allegation that defendant Reno ignored the procedures contained in her Protocol. Indeed, from all appearances defendant Reno scrupulously followed her self-prescribed Protocol procedures. Plaintiff has not alleged, for instance, that the U.S. Attorney sought the death penalty without the prior written authorization of the Attorney General, Protocol at § 9-10.000(A), or failed to submit a prosecution memorandum to the Attorney General, Id. at § 9-10.000(A); or that plaintiffs counsel were denied a reasonable opportunity to present matters in opposition to capital punishment to the U.S. Attorney and DOJ, Id. § 9-10.000(B), (D); or that the Attorney General failed to appoint a special committee to review all submissions, Id. § 9-10.000(D), or failed to receive a recommendation from that committee. Id. Under the foregoing cases, such allegations might tuell provide a basis for this Court to set aside defendant Reno’s determination and remand the matter to the Attorney General for reconsideration pursuant to the procedures she has prescribed for herself in the Protocol.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[t]he Attorney General’s actions undertaken within her prosecutorial discretion are only presumptively unreviewable: review still may be had in circumstances where the relevant substantive statute limits [the Department of Justice’s] discretion by providing guidelines for the agency to follow in the exercise of its discretion, or, in certain cases, where meaningful and judicially manageable standards otherwise available provide the court ivith law to apply.”
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.