Girard v. Klopfenstein’s Empirical Analysis
930 F.2d 738 · 1991
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably Portland Audubon Society v. Endangered Species Committee (1993), Wilson v. A. H. Belo Corp. (1996)
13 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 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
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 45 (§ 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914) · 28 U.S.C. § 2201 · 41 U.S.C. § 601 (Contract Disputes Act of 1978) · 41 U.S.C. § 605 · 5 U.S.C. § 554 (Administrative Procedure Act of 1946)
Relies on Mathews v. Eldridge · Goldberg v. Kelly · Weinberger v. Salfi · United States v. Munsingwear, Inc. · In the Matters of Lee Roy Murchison and John Whites
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“become the standard for determining whether certain challenged administrative procedures comply with the requirements of due process.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional procedural safeguards; and, finally, the Government’s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirements would entail.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“This section applies, according to the provisions thereof, in every case of adjudication required by statute to be determined on the record after opportunity for an agency hearing....”
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.