Curtis, Inc. v. Interstate Commerce Commission’s Empirical Analysis
662 F.2d 680 · 1981
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently November 2008 · most notably Mickeviciute v. Immigration & Naturalization Service (2003), Rivera-Zurita v. Immigration & Naturalization Service (1991)
24 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 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 Richardson v. Perales · Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation Same · Bowman Transportation, Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc. · Consolo v. Federal Maritime Commission · Colorado Interstate Gas Co. v. Federal Power Commission
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) [t]he nature and extent of ... [the carrier’s] past violations, (2) the mitigating circumstances surrounding the violations, (3) whether the carrier’s conduct represents a flagrant and persistent disregard of [the] Commission’s rules and regulations, (4) whether it has made sincere efforts to correct its past mistakes, and (5) whether the applicant is willing and able to comport in the future with the statute and the applicable rules and regulations thereunder.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent an administrative agency's findings from being supported by substantial evidence.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”
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.