Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 607 F.2d 392 - National Ass'n of Greeting Card Publishers v. United States Postal Service

National Ass'n of Greeting Card Publishers v. United States Postal Service’s Empirical Analysis

607 F.2d 392 · 1979

Citation profile

50
cited by 50 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
March 2010
most recently cited

26 federal appellate · 2 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 50 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2010 · most notably National Ass'n of Regulatory Utility Commissioners v. Federal Communications Commission (1984), Public Citizen v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (1990)

26 federal appellate · 2 district ·

33019791980199020002010decided

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 Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner · Roe v. Wade · Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Consolo v. Federal Maritime 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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “In Docket No. MC76-2, the Commission recently rejected a proposed surcharge on red tag mail, as well as a proposal to eliminate the current restriction on the availability of red tag to periodicals with a frequency of once a week or more. The Governors affirmed this aspect of the Commission’s recommended decision, but rejected a recommendation that red tag be incorporated into the Domestic Mail Classification Schedule as a separate subclass of second-class. Both decisions indicated that a reexamination of the question would be appropriate in light of the adoption — subsequent to the development of the record in that proceeding — of the service related cost methodology. The [Rate Commission] has recently initiated a proceeding, Docket No. MC79-3, to undertake that reexamination.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “We agree . . . that assignment of service related costs to mail not receiving preferential service raises serious concerns of discrimination. . . . [W]e have accepted, at least for this case, the [Commission’s] adoption of a model based on a dichotomy between preferential and nonpreferential mail, even though that distinction may not entirely reflect actual service priorities. But the failure to distinguish in the assignment of costs between preferential and nonpreferential mail goes contrary to the [Commission’s] own model.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Our deference is particularly great where the PRC has gone beyond even the “reasonable inferences of causation” that permit “extended attribution” into the zone of “assignment.” While both attribution and assignment involve inferences of causation, we observed in NAGCP I that “the latter concept permits a greater degree of estimation and connotes somewhat more judgment and discretion than the former.” Id., 186 U.S.App.D.C. at 348 n.59, 569 F.2d at 587 n.59.”
    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.