Valdez v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 8 district · 45 state decisions

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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The filed rate doctrine is a doctrine that allows for "any 'filed rate'-that is, one approved by the governing regulatory agency-[to be] per se reasonable and unassailable in judicial proceedings brought by ratepayers." Miranda v. Michigan , 141 F.Supp.2d 747 , 757 (E.D. Mich. 2001) (quoting Wegoland Ltd. v. NYNEX Corp. , 27 F.3d 17 , 18 (2d Cir.1994) ). As the district court noted in its ruling, "[t]he heart of the filed rate doctrine is not that the rate mirrors a competitive market, nor that the rate is reasonable or thoroughly researched, it is that the filed rate is the only legal rate." Daleure v. Kentucky , 119 F.Supp.2d 683 , 689 (W.D.Ky. 2000). The policy behind the filed rate doctrine is to prevent price discrimination and to preserve the role of agencies in approving rates and to keep courts out of the rate-making process. Arsberry v. Illinois , 117 F.Supp.2d 743 , 744 (N.D.Ill. 2000).... In light of the history behind the filed rate doctrine, we believe that this Court "should think deeply before avoiding its application without good reason." [ Daleure v. Commonwealth of Kentucky , 119 F.Supp.2d at 689 . ] In New Mexico, the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission (NMPRC) regulates intrastate calls. NMSA 1978, § 63-9A-8(A) (1987). The NMPRC has exempted inmate telephone services from several of its regulations and has authorized the rates at issue. We hold that under the filed rate doctrine these rates are legal and that Plaintiffs' claims for damages, restitution”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bhasker v. Kemper Cas. Ins. Co.

2. “Nothing contained in the Antitrust Act is intended to prohibit actions which are: A. clearly and expressly authorized by any state agency or regulatory body acting under a clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed state policy to displace competition with regulation; and B. actively supervised by the state agency or regulatory body which is constitutionally or statutorily granted the authority to supervise such actions when the agency or regulatory body does not have any proprietary interest in the actions.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Coll v. First American Title Insurance

3. “Nothing in [this Act] shall apply to actions or transactions expressly permitted under laws administered by a regulatory body of New Mexico or the United States, but all actions or transactions forbidden by the regulatory body, and about which the regulatory body remains silent, are subject to the [Act]. .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In Re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litigation