Alabama Power Co. v. Alabama Electric Cooperative, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
394 F.2d 672 · 1968
Citation profile
34 federal appellate · 3 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently December 2023 · most notably Jeffrey v. Southwestern Bell (1975), Hecht v. Pro-Football, Inc. (1971)
34 federal appellate · 3 district · 6 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 Pierson v. Ray · United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. · Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc. · Parker v. Brown · Barr v. Matteo
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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We agree... that rural electric cooperatives are something more than public utilities; they are instrumentalities of the United States.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he making of loans by the Administrator necessarily includes the existence and ability of borrowers to whom such loans can be made.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[The cooperative] is owned and controlled by its members and is merely the means by which they generate and transmit electric power for themselves rather than purchasing power and transmission service from another source. Instead of having one organization performing the generating, transmitting and distributing function, [the cooperative] engages in the first two operations on behalf of its members and the latter perform the distributing operation. Because of this separation of the operations required to serve consumers [,] the 35-year, all requirements contracts between [the cooperative] and the Members were necessary to meet the requirements of the [Rural Electrification] Act.”
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.