green
Positive treatment
Trending · 71 recent citers
Quoted verbatim 3×
22.7 score
G Cite
cited 3× by 2 distinct cases, 2012–2017 ·
…n the absence of a statutorily defined standard of review for action under , the apa supplies the applicable standard.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 2002 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2002
2014
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 33 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority v. Haugrud
n the absence of a statutorily defined standard of review for action under , the apa supplies the applicable standard.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority v. United States
(2×)
n the absence of a statutorily defined standard of review for action under , the apa supplies the applicable standard.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
State Farm v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.
the use of different words within related statutes generally implies that different meanings were intended.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
(HC) Andara-Ponce v. Wolf
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 1 322, 335–36 (2003).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Alegre v. Contreras
The Supreme 25 Court has stated that although “the undisputed existence of a general trust relationship 26 between the United States and the Indian people” can “reinforc[e]” the conclusion that the 27 relevant statute or regulation imposes fiduciary duties, “that relationship alone is 28 insufficient to support jurisdiction under the Indian Tucker Act.” Navajo Nation, 537 U.S. 1 at 506.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
(SS) Prakonkham v. Commissioner of Social Security
Moisa v. Barnhart, 367 F.3d 882, 886 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 1 12, 16 (2002)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Thomas v. Warden, NHSP
Woodford, 537 U.S. at 24 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
cited
Cited "see"
Harrosh v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
See I.N.S. v. Orlando Ventura, 537 U.S. 1 12, 16 (2002) (per curiam).
cited
Cited "see"
Larry Hatfield v. William P. Barr
See United States v. Bean , 537 U.S. 71 , 123 S.Ct. 584 , 154 L.Ed.2d 483 (2002).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Triggs
See U.S. v. Bean , 537 U.S. 71 , 77, 123 S.Ct. 584 , 154 L.Ed.2d 483 (2002) ; Binderup , 836 F.3d at 350 .
cited
Cited "see"
Holloway v. Sessions
See United States v. Bean , 537 U.S. 71 , 74-75, 123 S.Ct. 584 , 154 L.Ed.2d 483 (2002) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited "see"
Outdoor Amusement Bus. Ass'n, Inc. v. Dep't of Homeland Sec.
"The APA provides that a reviewing court is bound to 'hold unlawful and set aside agency action' for certain specified reasons, including whenever the challenged act is 'arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.' " Friends of Back Bay, 681 F.3d at 586 -87 (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 706 (2)(A) ); see United States v. Bean, 537 U.S. 71 , 77, 123 S.Ct. 584 , 154 L.Ed.2d 483 (2002) ; Camp v. Pitts, 411 U.S. 138 , 142, 93 S.Ct. 1241 , 36 L.Ed.2d 106 (1973) (per curiam); N. Carolina Growers' Ass'n, Inc. v. United Farm Workers, 702 F.3d 755 , 763 (4th Cir. 2012…
discussed
Cited "see"
Jensen v. Intermountain Healthcare, Inc.
See CTS Corp. v. Waldburger , 537 U.S. 1 , 134 S.Ct. 2175 , 2183, 189 L.Ed.2d 62 (2014) ("Statutes of limitations, but not statutes of repose, are subject to equitable tolling, a doctrine that 'pauses the running of, or "tolls," a statute of limitations when a litigant has pursued his rights diligently but some extraordinary circumstance prevents him from bringing a timely action.' " (citation omitted) ).
discussed
Cited "see"
In re A.M.
See United States v. Bean , 537 U.S. 71 , 77, 123 S.Ct. 584 , 154 L.Ed.2d 483 (2002). 7 The statement of support reads: "After full consideration of the testimony and exhibits presented at hearing on November 7th, 2016, being duly held to direct and cross-examination, the county attorney, pursuant to Iowa Code section 724.31(2), supports the relief sought by the petitioner."
cited
Cited "see"
Clifford Tyler v. Hillsdale County Sheriff's Dep't
See Bean, 537 U.S. at 75 n.3, 123 S.Ct. 584 (listing subsequent appropriations decisions); Mullis v. United States, 230 F.3d 215, 219 (6th Cir. 2000).
cited
Cited "see"
Clifford Tyler v. Hillsdale County Sheriff's Dep't
See Bean, 537 U.S. at 77 , 123 S.Ct. 584 . .
cited
Cited "see"
Eric Drake v. United States
See United States v. Bean, 537 U.S. 71, 74 , 123 S.Ct. 584 , 154 L.Ed.2d 483 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see"
Simms-Wilson v. Blair (In Re Simms-Wilson)
See U.S. v. 1.16 Acres of Land, more or less, situate in Cameron County, Tex., 585 F.Supp.2d 901, 907 (S.D.Tex.2008) ("The use of different words within related statutes generally implies that different meanings were intended.”) (quoting United States v. Bean, 537 U.S. 71 , 76 n. 4, 123 S.Ct. 584 , 154 L.Ed.2d 483 (2002)). 15 .
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. 1.16 Acres of Land, More or Less
See Bean, 537 U.S. at 76 n. 4, 123 S.Ct. 584 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Intermodal Technologies, Inc. v. Mineta
See United States v. Bean, 537 U.S. 71, 75 , 123 S.Ct. 584 , 154 L.Ed.2d 483 (2002) (holding that “inaction” by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms “does not amount to a ‘denial’ within the meaning of’ the statute allowing subsequent judicial review).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Mills
See United States v. Bean, 537 U.S. 71 , 123 S.Ct. 584, 585-86 , 154 L.Ed.2d 483 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Williams
See United States v. Bean, 537 U.S. 71 , 123 S.Ct. 584 , 587 n. 4, 154 L.Ed.2d 483 , 489 n. 4 (2002) (“The use of different words within related statutes generally implies that different meanings were intended.” (quoting 2A N. Singer, Sutherland on Statutes and Statutory Construction § 46.06, at 194 (6th ed.2000))).
examined
Cited "see"
Black v. Snow
(3×)
See Bean, 123 S.Ct. at 587 n. 3 (cataloging these appropriations provisions). 3 Bound by this prohibition, ATF now simply returns any individual application that it receives with an explanation that it is permitted to do no more. 4 In 1986, plaintiff was convicted in California of possessing narcotics for sale, which under the law of that state is punishable by more than one year’s imprisonment.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Securities & Exchange Commission v. Strebinger
See Big Apple Consulting, 783 F.3d at 797 (stating that the “the [Supreme] Court’s definition of ‘to make’ in Rule 10b-5 does not apply to § 17(a)(2).”); see also United States v. Bean, 537 U.S. 71 , 76 n. 4, 123 S.Ct. 584 , 154 L.Ed.2d 483 (2002) (Highlighting that, as a general rule, “[t]he use of different terms within related statutes generally implies that different meanings were intended.” (citation omitted)).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Jefferson Schrader v. Eric Holder, Jr.
But since 1992, “Congress has repeatedly barred the Attorney General from using appropriated funds to investigate or act upon relief applications,” leaving the provision “inoperative.” Logan, 552 U.S. at 28 n. 1, 128 S.Ct. 475 (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted); see also United States v. Bean, 537 U.S. *983 71, 74-75, 123 S.Ct. 584 , 154 L.Ed.2d 483 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
GJONDREKAJ v. Napolitano
In absence of a statutorily defined standard of judicial review of the agency action, the APA supplies the applicable standard. 5 U.S.C. § 701 (a); see also United States v. Bean, 537 U.S. 71, 77 , 123 S.Ct. 584 , 154 L.Ed.2d 483 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Sierra Club v. Otter Tail Power Co.
See, e.g., United States v. Bean, 537 U.S. 71, 75-76 , 123 S.Ct. 584 , 154 L.Ed.2d 483 (2002) (focusing on the “text of [ 18 U.S.C. § 925 (e), the relevant judicial review provision,] and the procedure it lays out for seeking relief’ to determine whether inaction by Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms was subject to judicial review).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Assuta Medical Center v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Under the APA, agency decisions may be set aside if they are “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706 (2)(A); see also United States v. Bean, 537 U.S. 71, 77 , 123 S.Ct. 584 , 154 L.Ed.2d 483 (2002).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
John S. Pope v. United States Department of Transportation
Compare United States v. Bean, supra, 537 U.S. at 74 n. 1, 123 S.Ct. 584 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Jalbert
Id. at 1256 ; see also Bean v. United States, 89 F.Supp.2d 828, 838 (E.D.Tex.2000) (holding that section 922(g)(1) does not include foreign convictions), rev’d on other grounds, — U.S. -, 123 S.Ct. 584 , 154 L.Ed.2d 483 (2002).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
FORD MOTOR CO. ET AL.
v.
McCAULEY ET AL.
v.
McCAULEY ET AL.
01-896.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 15, 2002.
Per Curiam.
Cited by 3 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Ninth Circuit (3) · Court of Appeals of Minnesota (1)
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT.
Seth P. Waxman argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were Walter E. Dellinger, John H. Beisner, Brian P. Brooks, Jonathan D. Hacker, Christopher R. Lipsett, and Bruce M. Berman.
Steve W. Berman argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Roger W. Kirby, James G. Lewis, and Russell J. Drake.[*]
[*2] PER CURIAM.
The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted.
It is so ordered.
[*] Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the United States by Solicitor General Olson, Assistant Attorney General McCallum, Deputy Solicitor General Clement, Barbara McDowell, Barbara C. Biddle, and Thomas M. Bondy; for the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America by Evan M. Tager, David M. Gossett, and Robin S. Conrad; for the Business Roundtable by Bruce E. Clark; for the National Association of Manufacturers by Carter G. Phillips, Gene C. Schaerr, Paul J. Zidlicky, Michael S. Lee, Jan S. Amundson, and Quentin Riegel; for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America by David Klingsberg, Thomas A. Smart, and Mark S. Popofsky; for the Product Liability Advisory Council by Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr.; and for State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. by Sheila L. Birnbaum, Douglas W. Dunham, and Ellen P. Quackenbos.
Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the Association of Trial Lawyers of America by Jeffrey Robert White and Laura C. Tharney; and for Trial Lawyers for Public Justice by Roger L. Mandel, Marc R. Stanley, Mark A. Chavez, Arthur Bryant, and Michael Quirk.