Time Warner Cable v. Doyle’s Empirical Analysis
66 F.3d 867 · 1995
Citation profile
28 federal appellate · 2 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 64 later decisions — most recently February 2018 · most notably 31 Cal. 4th 179 - People v. Floyd (2003), Bass v. Stolper, Koritzinsky, Brewster & Neider, S.C. (1997)
28 federal appellate · 2 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
Applies 47 U.S.C. § 522 · 47 U.S.C. § 532 · 47 U.S.C. § 543 · 47 U.S.C. § 552
Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Younger v. Harris · Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co. · Burford v. Sun Oil Co. · Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp.
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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the plain language of the statute is the most reliable indicator of congressional intent”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“‘If the statute contains an express pre-emption clause, the task of statutory construction must in the first instance focus on the plain wording of the clause, which necessarily contains the best evidence of Congress’ pre-emptive intent.’ CSX Transp., Inc. v. Easterwood, 507 U.S. 658, 664 , 113 S.Ct. 1732 , 123 L.Ed.2d 387 (1993) (quoting Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U.S. 218, 230 , 67 S.Ct. 1146 , 91 L.Ed. 1447 [1947]) However, "[p]re-emption ... is compelled whether Congress' command is explicitly stated in the statute's language or implicitly contained in its structure and purpose.” Fidelity Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. de la Cuesta, 458 U.S. 141, 152-53 , 102 S.Ct. 3014 , 73 L.Ed.2d 664 (1982) (quotations and citation omitted). The Court has indicated that preemption may occur when: Congress, in enacting a federal statute, expresses a clear intent to pre-empt state law, when there is outright or actual conflict between federal and state law, where compliance with both federal and state law is in effect physically impossible, where there is implicit in federal law a barrier to state regulation, where Congress has legislated comprehensively, thus occupying an entire field of regulation and leaving no room for the States to supplement federal law, or where the state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full objectives of Congress. Louisiana Public Service Comm’n, 476 U.S. at 368-69 , 106 S.Ct. 1890 (citations omitted); see also de la Cues”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) whether the suit is based on a cause of action which is exclusively federal; (2) whether difficult or unusual state laws are at issue; (3) whether there is a need for coherent state doctrine in the area; and (4) whether stated procedures indicate a desire to create special state forums to adjudicate the issues presented.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.