Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 526 F.2d 679 - Miree v. United States

Miree v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

526 F.2d 679 · 1976

Citation profile

23
cited by 23 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
December 2010
most recently cited

18 federal appellate · 2 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 23 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2010

18 federal appellate · 2 district ·

19019761980199020002010decided

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 49 U.S.C. § 1101 (National Transportation Safety Board Amendments)

Relies on Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States · United States v. Seckinger · Housing Corp. of America v. United States · Housing Corp. of America v. United States · Mahler v. United States

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

  1. ““(1) . . . These covenants shall remain in full force and effect throughout the useful life of the facilities developed under this Project, . “(2) The Sponsor will operate the Airport as such for the use and benefit of the public. . . . That the Sponsor may prohibit or limit any given type, kind or class of aeronautical use of the Airport if such action is necessary for the safe operation of the Airport or necessary to serve the civil aviation needs of the public. “(3) The Sponsor will operate and maintain in a safe and serviceable condition the Airport and all facilities thereon and connected therewith which are necessary to serve the aeronautical users of the Airport other than facilities owned or controlled by the United States, and will not permit any activity thereon which would interfere with its use for airport purposes. “(4) In addition, the Sponsor will not erect or permit the erection of any permanent structure or facility which would interfere materially with the use, operation, or future development of the Airport, in any portion of a runway approach area in which the Sponsor has acquired, or may hereafter acquire, property interests permitting it to so control the use made of the surface of the land. “(5) . . . The Sponsor will not make or permit the making of any changes or alterations in the Airport or any of its facilities other than in conformity with the airport layout plan as so approved by the F.A.A., if such changes or alterations might adversely affect t”
    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.