City of Atlanta v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority’s Empirical Analysis
636 F.2d 1084 · 1981
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently September 2018 · most notably Kaepa, Inc. v. Achilles Corp. (1996), Bellsouth Telecommunications, Inc. v. MCIMetro Access Transmission Services, LLC (2005)
10 federal appellate · 1 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 United States Trust Company of New York v. New Jersey · The Canal Authority of the State of Florida v. Howard H. Callaway, Secretary of the United States Army, the Cross-Florida Canal Association v. Howard H. Callaway, Secretary of the United States Army, Eleanor H. Miller v. Avery S. Fullerton, Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Corps of Engineers of the United States Army, J. G. Perko v. The Canal Authority of the State of Florida, Etc. · Sailors v. Board of Ed. of Kent Cty. · Indian Towing Co. v. United States · Vision Center v. Opticks, 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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) A substantial likelihood that they will prevail on the merits; (2) A substantial threat that plaintiffs will suffer immediate and irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted; (3) A threatened injury to plaintiffs which outweighs any substantial harm the injunction may cause to other parties; and (4) The public interest would not be adversely affected by the preliminary injunction.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““[n]o restraining order or preliminary injunction shall issue except upon the giving of security by the applicant, in such sum as the court deems proper, for the payment of such costs and damages as may be incurred or suffered by any party who is found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[The] parties were seeking to protect citizens in the Atlanta area from perceived adverse economic and social consequences. In a real sense, therefore, plaintiffs were engaged in public interest litigation, an area in which the courts have recognized an exception to the Rule 65 security requirement.”
1 later decision 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.