Reiter v. Cooper’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
385 federal appellate · 176 district · 131 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,388 later decisions (33 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2025 · most notably V. C O Churner (2001), Trw Inc v. Adelaide Andrews (2001)
385 federal appellate · 176 district · 131 state decisions — followed in 26 states
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
reviewedCooper v. Delaware Valley Shippers (from Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1336 · 31 U.S.C. § 3726 · 49 U.S.C. § 10701 · 49 U.S.C. § 11706 · 49 U.S.C. § 304a
Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp. · United States v. Western Pacific Railroad · United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co. · Heckler v. Ringer
Cited together with United States v. Western Pacific Railroad · Maislin Industries, U. S., Inc. v. Primary Steel, Inc. · Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.
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 1,388 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Where relief is available from an administrative agency, the plaintiff is ordinarily required to pursue that avenue of redress before proceeding to the courts; and until that recourse is exhausted, suit is premature and must be dismissed.”
70 later decisions quote this exact passage“The doctrine of primary jurisdiction, like the rule requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies, is concerned with promoting proper relationships between the courts and administrative agencies charged with particular regulatory duties. “Exhaustion” applies where a claim is cognizable in the first instance by an administrative agency alone; judicial interference is withheld until the administrative process has run its course. “Primary jurisdiction,” on the other hand, applies where a claim is originally cognizable in the courts, and comes into play whenever enforcement of the claim requires the resolution of issues which, under a regulatory scheme, have been placed within the special competence of an administrative body; in such a case the judicial process is suspended pending referral of such issues to the administrative body for its views.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]n the ordinary case, where a carrier is solvent and has promptly initiated suit, the equities favor separate judgment on the principal claim.”
7 later decisions 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.