ABC Air Freight Co. v. Civil Aeronautics Board’s Empirical Analysis
391 F.2d 295 · 1968
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently December 1980
5 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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 Ohio Bell Telephone Co. v. Public Utilities Commission · United States v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific R. · American Trucking Associations v. Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company National Automobile Transporters Association of Detroit Michigan · Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. City of Dallas · Secretary of Agriculture v. United States
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“. We fully recognize that, as Judge Prettyman classically stated in American Airlines, Inc. v. CAB, 192 F.2d 417 , 422 (D.C.Cir. 1951), agencies are not required to forecast the future “with mathematical precision.” But the very bite of his fine opinion is that in granting new authorizations, an expert agency must look forward and make the best informed estimate that it can. We find it disappointing that, on an issue of such importance to the instant determination, that function was not more fully performed. We would not wish to be misunderstood as ruling that even the present record might not be sufficient for the Board to initiate a properly controlled experiment in the authorization of truckers as air freight forwarders, with the limitation on numbers and the reporting and other requirements an experiment would be expected to entail. But that is not at all what the Board did. Reading the opinion as a commitment to grant authorizations to all comers, we find it wanting in the careful investigation, the substantial evidence and the rational explication that are demanded before an expert agency may lawfully embark on a new course apparently so fraught with danger to the industry Congress has confided to its regulation. . . . 24”
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.