Federal Communications Commission v. RCA Communications, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1953
Citation profile
386 federal appellate · 30 district · 24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 634 later decisions (34 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2021 · most notably Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States (1962), Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission (1969)
386 federal appellate · 30 district · 24 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedRCA Communications, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission (from District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1 (§ 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 12 (§ 1 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 47 U.S.C. § 151 · 47 U.S.C. § 314
Relies on Board of Trade of City of Chicago v. United States · Far East Conference v. United States · National Broadcasting Co. v. United States · Federal Communications Commission v. Pottsville Broadcasting Co. · United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Ass'n
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 634 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“is not required to make specific findings of tangible benefit,”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“competition is a relevant factor in weighing the public interest.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent““the scope of this Court’s duty to review administrative determinations under the Federal Communications Act * * * has been carefully defined. Ours is not the duty of reviewing determinations of ‘fact,’ in the narrow, colloquial scope of that concept. Congress has charged the courts with the responsibility of saying whether the Commission has fairly exercised its discretion within the vaguish, penumbral bounds expressed by the standard of ‘public interest.’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.