Federal Maritime Commission v. Pacific Maritime Ass'n’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
74 federal appellate · 9 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 135 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2014 · most notably United States Lines, Inc. v. Federal Maritime Commission (1978), USS-POSCO Industries v. Contra Costa County Building & Construction Trades Council (1994)
74 federal appellate · 9 district · 3 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
reviewedPacific Maritime Association v. Federal Maritime Commission and United States of America, Council of North Atlantic Shipping Association, Ports of Anacortes, Intervenors. International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union v. Federal Maritime Commission and United States of America (from District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 141 (§ 1 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act)) · 29 U.S.C. § 158 (§ 8 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 160 (§ 10 of the National Labor Relations Act)
Relies on United Mine Workers v. Pennington · United Mine Workers of America v. M Pennington Local Union No 189 Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America · Cardillo v. United States · Allen Bradley Co. v. Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers · Connell Construction Co. v. Plumbers & Steamfitters Local Union No. 100
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 135 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Every common carrier by water, or other person subject to this chapter, shall file immediately with the Commission a true copy, or, if oral, a true and complete memorandum, of every agreement with another such carrier or other person subject to this chapter, or modification or cancellation thereof, to which it may be a party or conform in whole or in part, fixing or regulating transportation rates or fares; giving or receiving special rates, accommodations, or other special privileges or advantages; controlling, regulating, preventing, or destroying competition; pooling or apportioning earnings, losses, or traffic; allotting ports or restricting or otherwise regulating the number and character of sailings between ports; limiting or regulating in any way the volume or character of freight or passenger traffic to be carried; or in any manner providing for an exclusive, preferential, or cooperative working arrangement. The term “agreement” in this section includes understandings, conferences, and other arrangements. .. . The Commission shall by order, after notice and hearing, disapprove, cancel or modify any agreement, or any modification or cancellation thereof, whether or not previously approved by it, that it finds to be unjustly discriminatory or unfair as between carriers, shippers, exporters, importers, or ports, or between exporters from the United States and their foreign competitors, or to operate to the detriment of the commerce of the United States, or to be contrary”
15 later decisions quote this exact passage“The impact upon business which this activity has must then be examined to determine the extent of its possible effect upon competition, and whether any such effect is a direct and probable result of the activity or only remote. Ultimately, the relief requested or the sanction imposed by law must then be weighed against its effect upon the collective bargaining agreement. * * *”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“In Connell Construction Co. v. Plumbers & Steamfitters, 421 U.S. 616 (, 95 S.Ct. 1830, 44 L.Ed.2d 418 (1975), for example, the Court, after concluding that the agreement in question was not entitled to the nonstatutory labor exemption from the antitrust laws, remanded for consideration whether the agreement violated the Sherman Act. See also, Meat Cutters v. Jewel Tea, 381 U.S. 676 , 688-689, 85 S.Ct. 1596, 1601-1602, 14 L.Ed.2d 640 (1965) (opinion of White, J.)”
1 later decision 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.