Longview Refining Co. v. Shore’s Empirical Analysis
554 F.2d 1006 · 1977
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently March 2014 · most notably Standard Oil Co. v. Department of Energy (1978), Texas American Oil Corporation v. United States Department of Energy (1995)
2 federal appellate · 4 district ·
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 15 U.S.C. § 751 · 15 U.S.C. § 761 (Federal Energy Administration Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. · Spies v. United States · Sansone v. United States · Boyce Motor Lines, Inc. 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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[o]n remand, the district court should order the FEA, which has expertise and responsibility with respect to interpreting, applying, and enforcing the statutes and the pricing regulations in controversy, including corrective action for any unlawful price increase passed down the stream of commerce by a plaintiff, to be joined as a party to this litigation.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““the amount by which the consideration for ... the sale of goods ... exceeds the applicable ceiling [price] under the [mandatory petroleum price] regulations.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Mere failure of a defendant to perform the mechanical calculations under the formula in arriving at the price charged for covered products does not in and of itself result in an overcharge, /. e., the sale of a covered product at a price which “exceeds the applicable ceiling” [§ 210(c)] price. The price actually charged (however arrived at) may be below the ceiling price, so a plaintiff would suffer no legal wrong entitling him to relief under § 210 of the Stabilization Act, which was adopted by § 5(a) of the Allocation Act. * * * * * * [M]ere failure to employ the formula in the process of arriving at prices would not constitute a legal wrong under § 210 of the Stabilization Act for which plaintiffs can recover. It is ... charging a price ... in excess of the applicable ceiling price allowable under the regulations containing the formula which would constitute a[n] .. . overcharge.”
1 later decision 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.