Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 227 USAPPDC 75 - Dana Corp. v. Interstate Commerce Commission

Dana Corp. v. Interstate Commerce Commission’s Empirical Analysis

1983

Citation profile

1
cited by 1 later decisions
April 1983
most recently cited

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2321 · 45 U.S.C. § 801 (Railroad Infrastructure Financing Improvement Act) · 49 U.S.C. § 10701 · 49 U.S.C. § 11101 · 49 U.S.C. § 11121 · 5 U.S.C. § 706

Relies on Udall v. Tallman · Michel v. United States · Sea-Land Service, Inc. v. Federal Maritime Commission · American Farm Lines v. Black Ball Freight Service · Ethyl Corporation v. Environmental Protection Agency, Ppg Industries, Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency, E. I. Dupont De Nemours & Company v. Environmental Protection Agency, Nalco Chemical Company v. Environmental Protection Agency, National Petroleum Refiners Association v. Environmental Protection Agency

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

  1. “in order to issue a stay, but only in order to accord reconsideration. 49 U.S.C. Sec. 10327(g)(2)(A) (Supp. IV 1980). At most it can be argued that a stay in order to permit reconsideration must include a finding that there is a likelihood of general transportation importance. To the extent this finding is needed, granting the Chairman the authority to issue the stay necessarily grants him the authority to make the finding. And such a more limited finding in no way infringes upon the Commission's exclusive power ultimately to determine”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “from normal demurrage or storage charges. Though the point is not made explicitly in the Commission's opinion, this perhaps refers to the fact that the penalty element of normal demurrage charges (both the discrete penalty charge assessed against the shipper and the penalty assessed against the carrier which consists of forfeiture of compensation) is intended, in the words of the Commission's leading case,”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “as the Commission has chosen to do. The remission of the carrier's compensatory charge in demurrage and other storage cases is less a penalty than it is the cancellation of unjustified payment for a use of facilities or equipment that has not occurred or has not been voluntary. The same situation exists here. Fundamentally, the petitioners are not seeking any”
    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.