Associated Press v. Federal Communications Commission’s Empirical Analysis
448 F.2d 1095 · 1971
Citation profile
44 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 70 later decisions — most recently February 2003 · most notably Municipal Light Boards of Reading & Wakefield Massachusetts v. Federal Power Commission (1971), Nader v. Federal Communications Commission (1975)
44 federal appellate · 4 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2342 · 47 U.S.C. § 154 · 47 U.S.C. § 203 · 47 U.S.C. § 204 · 47 U.S.C. § 402
Relies on United States v. Western Pacific Railroad · Permian Basin Area Rate Cases · United States v. L. A. Tucker Truck Lines, Inc. · Texas Pacific Railway Company v. Abilene Cotton Oil Company · Federal Communications Commission v. Pottsville Broadcasting Co.
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 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We recognize . . . that an agency has the power and in some cases the duty to reject a tariff that is demonstrably unlawful on its face. Thus, an agency will reject a tariff that conflicts with a statute, agency regulation or order. .”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Whenever there is filed with the Commission any new charge, classification, regulation, or practice, the Commission may either upon complaint or upon its own initiative without complaint, upon reasonable notice, enter upon a hearing concerning the lawfulness thereof; and pending such hearing and the decision thereon the Commission, . . . may suspend the operation of such charge, . . . but not for a longer period than three months beyond the time when it would otherwise go into effect; and after full hearing the Commission may make such order with reference thereto as would be proper in a proceeding initiated after it had become effective. If the proceeding has not been concluded and an order made within the period of the suspension, the proposed change . . . shall go into effect at the end of such period ; but in case of a proposed increased charge, the Commission may by order require the interested carrier or carriers to keep accurate account of all amounts received by reason of such increase, specifying by whom and in whose behalf such amounts are paid, and upon completion of the hearing and decision may by further order require the interested carrier or carriers to refund, with interest, to the persons in whose behalf such amounts were paid, such portion of such increased charges as by its decision shall be found not justified. ...””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“effective testing of the complex economic theories of costing and pricing which have been advanced in this record, and the reconciling of opposing, or at least partially conflicting, views of expert witnesses, can best be accomplished by relating the principles advocated to specific proposals.”
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.