American Trucking Associations Inc v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently February 2013 · most notably American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. Interstate Commerce Commission (1981), Nuclear Information Resource Service v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (1992)
18 federal appellate · 2 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
Relies on Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Organization · Sierra Club v. Morton · Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States · Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]o the extent that petitioners are arguing that the Commission is likely to abuse or misapply the new standards so as to deny intervention to persons with a right to intervene, the issue is not ripe for judicial review. See Toilet Goods Ass’n, Inc. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 158 , [ 87 S.Ct. 1520 , 18 L.Ed.2d 697 ] (1967). If any person is wrongfully denied permission to intervene, he has the right to appeal within the agency and then to the Court of Appeals. Such an individual case is not now before this court.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) the submission and consideration of facts, arguments, offers of settlement, or proposals of adjustment when time, the nature of the proceeding, and the public interest permit; and (2) to the extent that the parties are unable so to determine a controversy by consent, hearing and decision on notice and in accordance with sections 556 and 557 of this title.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.”
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.