National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission’s Empirical Analysis
342 F.3d 242 · 2003
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently September 2021 · most notably Cospito v. Attorney General of the United States (2008), Exxon Mobil Corporation v. Saudi Basic Industries Corporation (2004)
8 federal appellate · 3 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 Ex Parte: Edward T Young · District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman · Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co. · Stoll v. Gottlieb · Verizon Maryland Inc. v. Public Service Commission of Maryland
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the issue sought to be precluded [is] the same as that involved in the prior action; (2) that issue [was] actually litigated; (3) it [was] determined by a final and valid judgment; and (4) the determination [was] essential to the prior judgment,” Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 342 F.3d 242 , 252 (3d Cir. 2003) (alterations in original) (quoting Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 288 F.3d 519 , 524-25 (3d Cir. 2002)). Kams and Parker here invoke a variant of this doctrine, known as offensive non-mutual collateral estoppel, in which”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Karns v. Shanahan · In re Denaro“Rooker-Feldman [does] not bar the district court from hearing the claims of the [ ] plaintiffs because they were not parties to any of the state court proceedings on the matter.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Supreme Court has made clear, however, that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine only applies to state judicial proceedings, not administrative or legislative proceedings.”
3 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.