Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 49 Ill. App. 3d 398 - Cooper v. Illinois Commerce Commission

49 Ill. App. 3d 398 - Cooper v. Illinois Commerce Commission’s Empirical Analysis

1977

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
2
states following
March 2000
most recently cited

11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently March 2000

11 state decisions

601977198019902000decided

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

Relies on Mills v. Alabama · 38 Ill. 2d 154 - Be-Mac Transport Co. v. Illinois Commerce Commission · 37 Ill. App. 3d 857 - Colaw v. University Civil Service Merit Board · Arrow Transportation Co. v. United States · Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. Illinois Commerce 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““If the Commission finds that (1) the proposed purchaser or lessee is fit, willing and able, (2) that the proposed seller or lessor has not abandoned, suspended, or discontinued operations, and (3) that the transaction proposed will be consistent with the public interest and the policy declared in this Chapter and that the conditions of this Section have been or will be fulfilled, it shall enter an order approving and authorizing such transfer, * upon such terms and conditions as it finds to be just and reasonable.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““To be sure, dormant services should not be reinstated without a showing of public need. Those opposing such a transaction must establish with some particularity the extent to which their operations might be harmed by approval of the application. This is in accord with relevant Federal authorities. See Be-Mac Transport Co. v. Illinois Commerce Com. and cases cited therein.””
    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.