Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Federal Maritime Commission’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
449 federal appellate · 80 district · 32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 957 later decisions (31 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2019 · most notably Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1984), Arnett v. Kennedy (1974)
449 federal appellate · 80 district · 32 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
reviewedVolkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Federal Maritime Commission (from District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Consolo v. Federal Maritime Commission · United Mine Workers v. Pennington · National Labor Relations Board v. Hearst Publications, Inc. · United Mine Workers of America v. M Pennington Local Union No 189 Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America · National Labor Relations Board v. Brown
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 957 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“are not obliged to stand aside and rubber-stamp their affirmance of administrative decisions that they deem inconsistent with a statutory mandate or that frustrate the congressional policy underlying a statute.”
60 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Every agreement, modification, or cancellation lawful under this section or permitted under section 813a of this title, shall be exempted from the provisions of sections 1 to 11 and 15 of Title 15, and amendments and Acts supplementary thereto.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“First. To make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, locality, or description of traffic in any respect whatsoever, or to subject any particular person, locality, or description of traffic to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage in any respect whatsoever . . . .”
4 later decisions 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.