Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 485 F.2d 886 - Democratic Central Committee of the District of Columbia v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission, D. C. Transit System, Inc., Intervenor. District of Columbia v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission, D. C. Transit System, Inc., Intervenor. v. Black United Front v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission, D. C. Transit System, Inc., and Washington Construction Area Industry Task Force, Intervenors

Democratic Central Committee of the District of Columbia v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission, D. C. Transit System, Inc., Intervenor. District of Columbia v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission, D. C. Transit System, Inc., Intervenor. v. Black United Front v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission, D. C. Transit System, Inc., and Washington Construction Area Industry Task Force, Intervenors’s Empirical Analysis

485 F.2d 886 · 1973

Citation profile

25
cited by 25 later decisions
1
states following
July 2017
most recently cited

16 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently July 2017 · most notably Democratic Central Committee of The District of Columbia v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission (1973), Bebchick v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission (1986)

16 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions

13019731980199020002010decided

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. § 293

Relies on Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. United States · Permian Basin Area Rate Cases · Federal Power Commission v. Hope Natural Gas Co. · Federal Power Commission v. Natural Gas Pipeline Co. · Colorado Interstate Gas Co. 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “* * * we hold in Bebchick that, at least for the depreciable part of those withdrawn assets, the difference in value between the book figure at which the items were transferred and the fair market value at the time of transfer should be considered reimbursement to Transit's investors for the depreciation deficiency with which Bebchick was concerned.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The Compact placed an obligation upon the Commission to develop the record on important matters when it was unsatisfied with the record produced by the parties. The Commission, like other agencies charged with the protection of the public interest, was not created simply to “provide a forum for the” proceeding.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “What the investors bought was an ongoing mass-transportation system with physical components, including the lands in question, long since dedicated to public service. We do not mean to imply that had that not been the case, value-appreciations would necessarily have been immune to claims of farepayers. We do say that since that was the case, it makes those appreciations more susceptible to those claims. [Democratic Central Committee II, supra 158 U.S.App.D.C. at 120, 485 F.2d at 899.]”
    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.