Federal Power Commission v. Metropolitan Edison Co.’s Empirical Analysis
304 U.S. 375 · 1938
Citation profile
387 federal appellate · 15 district · 62 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 606 later decisions (16 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2022 · most notably Reisman v. Caplin (1964), Rochester Telephone Corporation v. United States (1939)
387 federal appellate · 15 district · 62 state decisions — followed in 14 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedMetropolitan Edison Co. v. Federal Power Commission (from Third Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 47
Relies on Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp. · Jones v. Securities & Exchange Commission · United States v. Los Angeles & Salt Lake Railroad · Procter Gamble Company v. United States of America
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 606 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The provision for review thus relates to orders of a definitive character dealing with the merits of a proceeding before the Commission and resulting from a hearing upon evidence and supported by findings appropriate to the case.”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““. . . The contention is at war with the long settled rule of judicial administration that no one is entitled to judicial relief for a supposed or threatened injury until the prescribed administrative remedy has been exhausted. . . . “Obviously, the rule requiring exhaustion of the administrative remedy cannot be circumvented by asserting that the charge on which the complaint rests is groundless and that the mere holding of the prescribed administrative hearing would result in irreparable damage. . . .” (pp. 50, 51.)”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“mere procedural requirements or interlocutory directions.”
4 later decisions 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.