Association of American Publishers, Inc. v. The Governors of the United States Postal Service, Direct Mail Advertising Association, Inc., Intervenors. Associated Third Class Mail Users v. The Governors of the United States Postal Service, J. C. Penney Company, Inc., and United Parcel Service, Intervenors’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
35 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 69 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2018 · most notably National Ass'n of Greeting Card Publishers v. United States Postal Service (1983), Butz Engineering Corp. v. United States (1974)
35 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 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 39 U.S.C. § 101 (Air Carriage of International Mail Act) · 39 U.S.C. § 201 · 39 U.S.C. § 3622 · 39 U.S.C. § 3626 · 39 U.S.C. § 3627 · 39 U.S.C. § 3628 · 39 U.S.C. § 401
Relies on Permian Basin Area Rate Cases · Market St Ry Co v. Railroad Commission of State of California · New York v. United States · International Harvester Co. v. Ruckelshaus · International Harvester Co. v. Ruckelshaus
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 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(3) the requirement that each class of mail or type of mail service bear the direct and indirect postal costs attributable to that class or type plus that portion of all other costs of the Postal Service reasonably assignable to such class or type.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage“may properly do is to consider whether the [PRC] did take into account all the relevant factors and no others.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“It would, of course, be the summum bo-num if we had accurate figures as to recent costs of carrying special fourth class mail. The only available figures were inaccurate, but were susceptible of rough adjustment. The Postal Service proposed one method of adjustment; the Chief Examiner, another. The Commission regarded each as helpful, but not wholly reliable. So the Commission more or less split the difference. No doubt it would have been possible to straighten out some of the errors or supposed errors of adjustment in either the Postal Service’s or the Chief Examiner’s calculations. And if rate-making were an exact science such a counsel of perfection would be mandatory. But, though courts hesitate so to admit, they know that in the rate-making area, John Selden was prophetic in declaring that in governing it is not juggling, but too much juggling[,] that is to be blamed.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.