Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 514 F.2d 351 - Condor Operating Co. v. Sawhill

Condor Operating Co. v. Sawhill’s Empirical Analysis

514 F.2d 351 · 1975

Citation profile

56
cited by 56 later decisions
2
states following
August 2001
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently August 2001 · most notably Carruth v. United States (1980), Pasco, Inc. v. Federal Energy Administration (1975)

5 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions

3501975198019902000decided

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. § 1292 · 50 U.S.C. § 4501

Relies on Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co. · Blanchette v. Connecticut General Insurance Corporations · Permian Basin Area Rate Cases · Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer · Home Building & Loan Ass'n v. Blaisdell

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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “. “Where the obvious intent of Congress is to give the President and his delegates broad power to do what reasonably is necessary to accomplish legitimate purposes rendered necessary by a recognized emergency, and regulations are fashioned to implement the Congressional mandate, the court should not interfere with the prerogative of the agency to select the remedy which for rational reasons is deemed most appropriate.””
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “A reasoned decision for the temporary suspension of usual ownership prerogative based upon broad national needs does not constitute necessarily an unconstitutional taking; and the issue of whether it does properly turns upon the circumstances of each case. 514 F.2d at 361 .”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “(A) protection of public health, safety, and welfare (including maintenance of residential heating, such as individual homes, apartments, and similar occupied dwelling units), and the national defense; (B) maintenance of all public services (including facilities and services provided by municipally, cooperatively, or investor owned utilities or by any State or local government or authority, and including transportation facilities and services which serve the public at large); (C) maintenance of agricultural operations, including farming, ranching, dairy, and fishing activities, and services directly related thereto; (D) preservation of an economically sound and competitive petroleum industry; including the priority needs to restore and foster competition in the producing, refining, distribution, marketing, and petrochemical sectors of such industry, and to preserve the competitive viability of independent refiners, small refiners, nonbranded independent marketers, and branded independent marketers; (E) the allocation of suitable types, grades, and quality of crude oil to refineries in the United States to permit such refineries to operate at full capacity; (F) equitable distribution of crude oil, residual fuel oil, and refined petroleum products at equitable prices among all regions and areas of the United States and sectors of the petroleum industry, including independent refiners, small refiners, nonbranded independent marketers, branded independent marketers, and among all”
    1 later decision 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.