National Tank Truck Carriers, Inc. v. Federal Highway Administration of the United States Department of Transportation’s Empirical Analysis
170 F.3d 203 · 1999
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently September 2015
6 federal appellate · 2 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
Relies on Stone v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Washington v. Harper · In re Disbarment of Graves · Natural Resources Defense Council v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission · Community Nutrition Institute v. Young
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he Hobbs Act gives this Court no authority to review the guidelines of a non-governmental organization such as the CVSA.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Us West Communications, Inc., and United States of America, Intervenor v. Roger Hamilton, Chairman of the Oregon Public Utility Commission Ron Eachus, Commissioner of the Oregon Public Utility Commission Joan H. Smith, Commissioner of the Oregon Public Utility Commission Oregon Public Utility Commission MCI Metro Access Transmission Services, Inc. Sprint Communications, and At&t Communications of the Pacific Northwest, Inc., Us West Communications, Inc., and United States of America, Intervenor v. Roger Hamilton, Chairman of the Oregon Public Utility Commission Ron Eachus, Commissioner of the Oregon Public Utility Commission Joan H. Smith, Commissioner of the Oregon Public Utility Commission Oregon Public Utility Commission At&t Communications of the Pacific Northwest, Inc. Sprint Communications, and MCI Metro Access Transmission Services, Inc., Us West Communications, Inc. v. Worldcom Technologies, Inc. · US West Communications, Inc. v. Hamiton“a declaration by an authorized enforcement officer of a Federal, State, Canadian, Mexican, or local jurisdiction that a driver, a commercial motor vehicle, or a motor carrier operation, is out-of-service pursuant to §§ 386.72, 392.5, 392.9a, 395.13, 396.9, or compatible laws, or the North American Standard Out-of-Serviee Criteria.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[g]overnment standards for inspection of commercial motor vehicles”
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.