Air Line Pilots Ass'n v. Quesada’s Empirical Analysis
276 F.2d 892 · 1960
Citation profile
81 federal appellate · 13 district · 15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 145 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2019 · most notably Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. Murgia (1976), 19 Cal. 4th 66 - Green v. Ralee Engineering Co. (1998)
81 federal appellate · 13 district · 15 state decisions — followed in 12 states
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 Home Building & Loan Ass'n v. Blaisdell · Bowles v. Willingham · United States v. Storer Broadcasting Co. · Bi-Metallic Investment Company v. State Board of Equalization · American Trucking Ass'ns v. United States Eastern Motor Exp
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 145 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he principal purpose of the [FAA] is to create one unified system of flight rules and to centralize in the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration the power to promulgate rules for the safe and efficient use of the country's airspace.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage““Obviously, unless the incidental limitations upon the use of airmen’s certificates were subject to modification by general rules,7 the conduct of the Administrator’s business would be subject to intolerable burdens which might well render it impossible for him effectively to discharge his duties. All changes in certificates would be subject to adjudicative hearings, including appeals to the courts, and each pilot whose license was affected —here some 18,000 — might demand to be heard individually. [Footnote omitted].” 276 F.2d at 896 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(b) General notice of proposed rule making shall be published in the Federal Register, unless persons subject thereto are named and either personally served or otherwise have actual notice thereof in accordance with law. The notice shall include— (1) a statement of the time, place, and nature of public rule making proceedings; (2) reference to the legal authority under which the rule is proposed; and (3) either the terms or substance of the proposed rule or a description of the subjects and issues involved. * * * * * * (c) After notice required by this section, the agency shall give interested persons an opportunity to participate in the rule making through submission of written data, views, or arguments with or without opportunity for oral presentation. After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the agency shall incorporate in the rules adopted a concise general statement of their basis and purpose. When rules are required by statute to be made on the record after opportunity for an agency hearing, sections 556 and 557 of this title apply instead of this subsection. (d) The required publication or service of a substantive rule shall be made not less that 30 days before its effective date. * # * * * * (e) Each agency shall give an interested person the right to petition for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.