Avista Corp. v. Wolfe’s Empirical Analysis
549 F.3d 1239 · 2008
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently September 2024
4 federal appellate · 1 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
Applies 16 U.S.C. § 1248 · 23 U.S.C. § 316 · 28 U.S.C. § 636 · 43 U.S.C. § 912 · 43 U.S.C. § 913 · 43 U.S.C. § 934
Relies on Chicago & North Western Transportation Co. v. Kalo Brick & Tile Co. · Great Northern Ry Co v. United States · Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. Townsend · United States v. Union Pacific Railroad · Leo Sheep Co. 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A declaration of retroactive abandonment would be inconsistent with the plain language of § 912, which requires both physical abandonment and a formal declaration of abandonment for reversionary interests to vest. A retroactive declaration would also be incompatible with the structure of § 912, because it would deprive local and state governments of the opportunity to acquire the right-of-way pursuant to the § 912 highway exception. For example, here, the operation of the district court’s decision deprived Sanders County of the opportunity to acquire the right-of-way by first applying a declaration of abandonment retroactively, then declaring the County’s rights under the highway exception extinguished by failure to act. We construe statutes to avoid such arbitrary forfeitures of property rights.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“While petitioning the I.C.C. for abandonment proceedings is indicative of a railroad’s intent to abandon, ‘[t]he I.C.C. does not determine abandonment.’ Rather, action by the I.C.C. “is only a determination that under its Congressional mandate, cessation of service would not hinder the I.C.C.’s purposes.””
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.