Clark v. Time Warner Cable’s Empirical Analysis
523 F.3d 1110 · 2008
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 66 later decisions — most recently February 2022 · most notably Astiana v. Hain Celestial Group, Inc. (2015), Chavez v. Blue Sky Natural Beverage Co. (2010)
7 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 47 U.S.C. § 151 · 47 U.S.C. § 153 · 47 U.S.C. § 160 · 47 U.S.C. § 258
Relies on Texas Pacific Railway Company v. Abilene Cotton Oil Company · Reiter v. Cooper · Williamson v. General Dynamics Corp. · Turner v. Cook · United States v. General Dynamics Corp.
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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the need to resolve an issue that (2) has been placed by Congress within the jurisdiction of an administrative body having regulatory authority (3) pursuant to a statute that subjects an industry or activity to a comprehensive regulatory authority that (4) requires expertise or uniformity in administration.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The primary jurisdiction doctrine allows courts to stay proceedings or to dismiss a complaint without prejudice pending the resolution of an issue within the special competence of an administrative agency.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“§ 258. Illegal changes in subscriber carrier selections (a) Prohibition No telecommunications carrier shall submit or execute a change in a subscriber’s selection of a provider of telephone exchange service or telephone toll service except in accordance with such verification procedures as the Commission shall prescribe. Nothing in this section shall preclude any State commission from enforcing such procedures with respect to intrastate services. (b) Liability for charges Any telecommunications carrier that violates the verification procedures described in subsection (a) of this section and that collects charges for telephone exchange service or telephone toll service from a subscriber shall be liable to the carrier previously selected by the subscriber in an amount equal to all charges paid by such subscriber after such violation, in accordance with such procedures as the Commission may prescribe. The remedies provided by this subsection are in addition to any other remedies available by law.”
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.