Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 395 U.S. 464 - Utah Public Service Commission v. El Paso Natural Gas Co.

Utah Public Service Commission v. El Paso Natural Gas Co.’s Empirical Analysis

1969

Citation profile

58
cited by 58 later decisions
6
cited 6 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
November 2022
most recently cited

20 federal appellate · 9 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 58 later decisions (6 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2022 · most notably SWARB Et Al. v. LENNOX Et Al. (1972), 552 F. Supp. 131 - United States v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co. (1983)

20 federal appellate · 9 district · 2 state decisions

2301969197019801990200020102020decided

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

Applies 15 U.S.C. § 18 (§ 7 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914)

Relies on William Marbury v. James Madison · In re Sanford Fork & Tool Co. · United States v. El Paso Natural Gas Co. · Cascade Natural Gas Corporation v. El Paso Natural Gas Co People of State of California · California v. Federal Power 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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(a) in the apportionment of gas reserves; and (b) The Decree did not provide for complete divestiture in that the plan adopted by the Court did not sever all managerial and financial connections between El Paso and the New Company and that such severance was required to satisfy the Mandate of Cascade .”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““. . .in light of the reallocation, [of gas reserves], to reopen consideration of which applicant should acquire New Company. Such consideration should, of course, include whether an award to a particular applicant will have any anti-competitive effects either in the California market or in other markets.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““Our direction was that the District Court provide for ‘divestiture without delay.’ “That mandate in the context of the opinion plainly meant that PNW or a New Company be at once restored to a position where it could compete with El Paso in the California market.””
    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.