Marlowe v. Bottarelli’s Empirical Analysis
938 F.2d 807 · 1991
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently August 2014 · most notably Linda Phinney Etc et al. v. Wentworth Douglas Hospital et al. (1999), Russell v. Delco Remy Division of General Motors Corp. (1995)
23 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 706 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Udall v. Tallman · Consumer Product Safety Commission v. GTE Sylvania, Inc. · Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States · United States v. American Trucking Associations
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A court should] give deference to the views of the agency charged with administering [a] statute, so long as the agency’s suggested interpretation is reasonable. Similarly, when the question at hand involves an administrative agency’s interpretation of its own regulation, and the meaning of the regulation is in doubt, the courts will defer to the agency’s interpretation if that interpretation is reasonable. In both circumstances, deference to an agency’s interpretation is appropriate only because the intent of the drafter or drafters — whether Congress or the agency itself — is in doubt. Intent is, of course, at the heart of the judicial inquiry because the courts endeavor to give effect to the designs of Congress and the agencies to which the legislature has delegated authority. In discerning intent, courts traditionally focus on the language of statutes and regulations because we presume that legislatures and agencies mean what they say; most of the time, the “plain language” of a statute or regulation will be the best indicator of the enacting body’s will, and thus, only when the text is silent or ambiguous will [a court] defer to an administrative agency’s interpretation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the rare case where literal application of a text would lead to absurd results or thwart the obvious intentions of its drafters.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“work[s] instantaneous constructive termination of the state's jurisdiction over”
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.