Shell Offshore Inc. v. Babbitt’s Empirical Analysis
238 F.3d 622 · 2001
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently December 2021 · most notably Monmouth Medical Center v. Thompson (2001), Dismas Charities, Inc. v. United States Department of Justice (2005)
23 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 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 Camp v. Pitts · Chrysler Corporation v. Brown · Avoyelles Sportsmen's League, Inc. v. Marsh · Gibson Wine Co. v. Snyder · Paralyzed Veterans of America v. D.C. Arena L.P.
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[s]ummary judgment is appropriate if the record shows `that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The MMS shall deny the exception request if it determines that the tariff is excessive as compared to arm’s-length transportation charges by pipelines, owned by the lessee or others, providing similar transportation services in that area. If there are no arm’s-length transportation charges, MMS shall deny the exception request if: (i) No FERC or State regulatory agency cost analysis exists and the FERC or State regulatory agency, as applicable, has declined to investigate pursuant to MMS’ timely objection upon filing; and (ii) the tariff significantly exceeds the lessee’s actual costs for transportation ....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“An agency that, as a practical matter, has enacted a new substantive rule cannot evade the notice and comment requirements of the APA by avoiding written statements or other “official” interpretations of a given regulation. If a new agency policy represents a significant departure from long established and consistent practice that substantially affects the regulated industry, the new policy is a new substantive rule and the agency is obliged, under the APA, to submit the change for notice and comment.”
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.