States Marine International, Inc. v. Peter G. Peterson, Secretary of Commerce v. Liner Council, American Institute of Merchant Shipping, Intervenor-Appellee. American Maritime Association v. Peter G. Peterson, Secretary of Commerce v. Liner Council, American Institute of Merchant Shipping, Intervenor-Appellee’s Empirical Analysis
518 F.2d 1070 · 1975
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently January 1999 · most notably Aeron Marine Shipping Company v. United States Aeron Marine Shipping Company (1982), 576 F. Supp. 1081 - Abington Memorial Hospital v. Heckler (1983)
9 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 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
Relies on Nuesse v. Camp · Helvering v. Wilshire Oil Co. · Automotive Parts & Accessories Ass'n v. Boyd · Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission · Pennsylvania Water & Power 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.
“The Act consistently speaks of awarding subsidies only to vessels “meeting foreign competition.” ... The Board’s rule reducing subsidy when a vessel is not in “substantial competition” appears to strike a sound balance between the intention of Congress and the competitive needs of the industry. Additionally, the Board’s decision that subsidies should be based upon the amount of competition cargo carried during the year rather than upon other formulae sug gested by the parties finds support in the language of the Act, which speaks of “service” instead of cargo or voyages.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“The Report of the House Committee on the 1970 amendment made it clear that CDS has an entirely different purpose than ODS: “[T]he construction subsidies are subsidies to the shipyards, not to the shipowners.” The purpose of the CDS program is to subsidize shipyards of this country to enable them to compete effectively with foreign shipyards____ The only restrictions on payment of CDS listed in [the Act] are that the ship receiving subsidy be registered in the United States and be engaged in foreign commerce. Congress made no distinction between domestic purchasers who could or could not avail themselves of CDS. Instead, the section provides that all ship purchasers who qualify may buy ships which are eligible for CDS payments. The Act does not distinguish between those carrying preference cargo and those not carrying such cargo.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“the operation of such vessel ... is required to meet foreign-flag competition.”
2 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.