Watkins Motor Lines, Inc. v. Interstate Commerce Commission’s Empirical Analysis
641 F.2d 1183 · 1981
Citation profile
42 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently October 2005 · most notably Chaney v. Schweiker (1981), Central Freight Lines, Inc. v. United States (1982)
42 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
Applies 49 U.S.C. § 10101 (Bus Regulatory Reform Act of 1982) · 5 U.S.C. § 706
Relies on Bowman Transportation, Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc. · Bradley v. School Board of City of Richmond · Consolo v. Federal Maritime Commission · United States v. Vanella
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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“One must recognize the purpose of the Act, and the Congressional findings. The purpose is to reduce unnecessary regulation. The Act recognizes that the previous regulatory structure served to inhibit entry and one of the major goals of the Act is to make entry easier. Additionally, the Act is to be implemented with the least amount of disruption to the industry.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““(a) Except as provided in this section and section 10930(a) of this title, the Interstate Commerce Commission shall issue a certificate to a person authorizing that person to provide transportation subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission under subchapter II or III of chapter 105 of this title as a motor common carrier ... of water common carrier, respectively, if the Commission finds that— (1) the person is fit, willing, and able— (A) to provide the transportation to be authorized by the certificate; and (B) to comply with this subtitle and regulations of the Commission; and (2) the transportation to be provided under the certificate is or will be required by the present or future public convenience and necessity.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“shall issue a certificate ... if the Commission finds— (A) that the person is fit, willing, and able to provide the transportation to be authorized by the certificate ... and (B) on the basis of evidence presented by persons supporting the issuance of the certificate, that the service proposed will serve a useful public purpose, responsive to a public demand or need; unless the Commission finds, on the basis of evidence presented by persons objecting to the issuance of a certificate, that the transportation to be authorized by the certificate is inconsistent with the public convenience and necessity.”
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.