North Carolina Utilities Commission v. Federal Communications Commission’s Empirical Analysis
552 F.2d 1036 · 1977
Citation profile
69 federal appellate · 9 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 127 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2019 · most notably Louisiana Public Service Commission v. Federal Communications Commission (1986), Northeastern Telephone Company v. American Telephone and Telegraph Company (1981)
69 federal appellate · 9 district · 5 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. § 824 (§ 201 of the Federal Power Act of 1920) · 47 U.S.C. § 151 · 47 U.S.C. § 152 · 47 U.S.C. § 153 · 47 U.S.C. § 203 · 47 U.S.C. § 205 · 47 U.S.C. § 208 · 47 U.S.C. § 221
Relies on Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe · Udall v. Tallman · Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation · Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission · Permian Basin Area Rate Cases
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 127 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“if state commissions could lawfully prohibit interconnection unless terminal equipment is used exclusively for interstate communications, federal [regulations] authorizing interconnection would be made nugatory.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. People of the State of California Public Utilities Commission of the State of California, North American Telecommunications Association ("Nata") National Association of Regulatory Commissioners ("Naruc") Missouri Public Service Commission ("Mpsc"), Petitioners-Intervenors v. Federal Communications Commission, Pacific Bell, Respondents-Intervenors. People of the State of California Public Utilities Commission of the State of California, North American Telecommunications Association ("Nata") National Association of Regulatory Commissioners ("Naruc"), Petitioners-Intervenors v. Federal Communications Commission, Ameritech Operating Companies (Illinois Bell Telephone Co., Indiana Bell Telephone Co. Incorp., Michigan Bell Telephone Co., Ohio Bell Telephone Co., Wisconsin Bell, Inc.), Respondents-Intervenors. People of the State of California Public Utilities Commission of the State of California v. Federal Communications Commission, People of the State of New York, North American Telecommunications Association ("Nata") Pacific Bell, Nevada Bell, Pactel Communications Companies, and Pacific Telesis Group Iowa Utilities Board, Petitioners-Intervenors v. Federal Communications Commission, Bell Atlantic Telephone Companies ("Bell Atlantic"), Respondents-Intervenors. People of the State of New York, Pacific Bell, Nevada Bell, Pactel Communications Companies, and Pacific Telesis Group Iowa Utilities Board North American Telecommunications Association ("Nata"), Petitioners-Intervenors v. Federal Communications Commission, American Telephone and Telegraph, Respondents-Intervenors. State of Michigan Michigan Public Service Commission v. Federal Communications Commission United States of America, MCI Telecommunications Corporation v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America · National Ass'n of Regulatory Utility Commissioners v. Federal Communications Commission“the transmission of writing, signs, signals, pictures and sounds of all kinds ... incidental to such transmission.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“FCC regulations must preempt any contrary state regulations where the efficiency ... of the national communications network is at stake....”
2 later decisions 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.