Carter v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.’s Empirical Analysis
365 F.2d 486 · 1966
Citation profile
82 federal appellate · 10 district · 21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 153 later decisions — most recently April 2019 · most notably Lawrence Marcus Marc Kasky, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. At&t Corp., Jeffrey A. Moss, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Donna Borok Moss v. American Telephone and Telegraph Company (1998), Southwestern Electric Power Co. v. Grant (2002)
82 federal appellate · 10 district · 21 state decisions — followed in 11 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 United States v. Western Pacific Railroad · United States v. Philadelphia National Bank · Klor's, Inc. v. Broadway-Hale Stores, Inc. · Far East Conference v. United States · Fashion Originators' Guild of America, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission
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 153 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] tariff, required by law to be filed, is not a mere contract. It is the law.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“this Court has given full voice to this device. And in nearly every instance where we order it, it ought first to have been ordered by the trial Court. Thus, contrary to the suggestion of appellants that as Judges we are in as good a position to read Tariff No. 132 as the FCC, we sent a tariff construction problem to the ICC in Louisville & N.R.R. v. Knox Homes Corp., 5 Cir., 1965, 343 F.2d 887 . There it was tariffese which created the problem. Here it is largely technological consideration as to the equipment, apparatus, etc., reasonably within the tariffs description. In River Terminals Corp. v. Southwestern Sugar & Molasses Co., 5 Cir., 1958, 253 F.2d 922 , aff'd, 1959, 360 U.S. 411 , 79 S.Ct. 1210 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1334 , we ordered reference to the ICC of a serious problem of law under published tariffs. And in Agricultural Transp. Ass’n v. King, 5 Cir., 1965, 349 F.2d 873 , we sent to the ICC for initial determination the serious and far-reaching question of law concerning the interpretation and application of the Transportation Act and the interplay of the Agricultural Marketing Act, 12 U.S.C.A. § 1141 et seq.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The courts are obviously well equipped to make initial decisions involving the application of the antitrust policy. But, before the particular regulatory agency has defined the particular regulatory policy in the particular case, the courts are not well equipped to make initial decisions involving accommodation of the antitrust policy to the regulatory policy. 2”
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.