United States Lines, Inc. v. Federal Maritime Commission’s Empirical Analysis
584 F.2d 519 · 1978
Citation profile
104 federal appellate · 18 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 229 later decisions — most recently July 2024 · most notably Sierra Club v. Costle (1981), Simer v. Rios (1981)
104 federal appellate · 18 district · 7 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
Relies on Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe · United States v. Nixon · Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation · Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States · Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
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 229 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law,”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“[E]ven if the detailed contents of . ex parte contacts were revealed by the agency on judicial review, we would still be deprived of the benefit of an adversarial discussion among the parties. Our cases . . . make clear the critical role of adversarial comment in ensuring proper functioning of agency decision-making and effective judicial review. Such comment serves not only to clarify the issues and positions being considered at the agency level, but also to ensure that factual questions underlying the agency’s decision are not raised, by necessity, for the first time on judicial review. And adversarial comment is particularly critical where ... ex parte communications are made by a party interested in securing [favorable agency action]”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Commission shall by order, after notice and hearing, ... modify any agreement, or any modification or cancellation thereof, whether or not previously approved by it, that it finds ... to operate to the detriment of the commerce of the United States, or to be contrary to the public interest ....”
3 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.