Sequoia Orange Co. v. Yeutter’s Empirical Analysis
973 F.2d 752 · 1992
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently September 2024 · most notably Iowa League of Cities v. Environmental Protection Agency (2013), Jarvis v. Nobel/Sysco Food Services Co. (1993)
11 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 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 5 U.S.C. § 552 (Freedom of Information Act) · 5 U.S.C. § 553 (Administrative Procedure Act of 1946) · 5 U.S.C. § 556 (Administrative Procedure Act of 1946) · 5 U.S.C. § 701 · 5 U.S.C. § 702 · 5 U.S.C. § 706 · 7 U.S.C. § 601 · 7 U.S.C. § 608C (Food and Agriculture Act of 1965)
Relies on Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe · California State Board of Equalization v. Western Marina Corp. · ITT Continental Baking Co. v. William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. · United States v. Rock Royal Co-Op Noyes · Currin v. Wallace
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Court[s] review[ ] de novo the agency's decision not to follow the APA's notice and comment procedures. The agency is not entitled to deference because complying with the notice and comment provisions when required by the APA 'is not a matter of agency choice.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“42 U.S.C. S 405(g). On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court found that McCarthy had been overpaid $10,207.00 in Title II disability benefits during the period from March 1988 through March 1990. However, the district court reversed the Commissioner's determination that McCarthy was at fault for the overpayments and remanded to the Commissioner for a full and fair hearing on the question of fault. McCarthy timely appealed. 3 STANDARD OF REVIEW 8”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. McCarthy v. Apfel“The procedural safeguards of the APA help ensure that government agencies are accountable and their decisions are reasoned. See American Bus Ass’n v. United States, 627 F.2d 525, 528 (D.C.Cir.1980); 17 Rodway v. United States Dep’t of Agriculture, 514 F.2d 809, 817 (D.C.Cir.1975) (APA’s purpose is to cause agency to respond to comments in a reasoned manner and explain how agency resolved problems). These safeguards should have been observed in this case.”
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.