Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 680 F.2d 206 - State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Department of Transportation

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Department of Transportation’s Empirical Analysis

680 F.2d 206 · 1982

Citation profile

54
cited by 54 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
March 2007
most recently cited

31 federal appellate · 6 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 54 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2007 · most notably Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of United States Inc v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company Consumer Alert (1983), Small Refiner Lead Phase-Down Task Force v. United States Environmental Protection Agency (1983)

31 federal appellate · 6 district · 4 state decisions

480198219902000decided

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.

Appellate journey

Relationships

Relies on Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe · Udall v. Tallman · Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States · Camp v. Pitts · Phelps Dodge Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board

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.

  1. “Compelling circumstances 'primarily involve plain errors of law, suggesting that the agency has been blind to the source of its delegated power.'”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “We will exercise relatively careful scrutiny to ensure that the . . . [agency] has scrupulously followed . .. [required] procedures ... As part of this oversight we will demand that the Commission consider reasonably obvious alternative . . . rules, and explain its reasons for rejecting alternatives in sufficient detail to permit judicial review. At the same time, however, our review of the Commission’s factual, and particularly its policy, determinations will perforce be a narrow one, limited to ensuring that the Commission has adequately explained the facts and policy concerns it relied on and to satisfying ourselves that those facts have some basis in the record. Finally, we must see “whether those facts and legislative considerations by themselves could lead a reasonable person to make the judgment that the Agency has made.” [footnotes and citations omitted].”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “be practicable, shall meet the need for motor vehicle safety, and shall be stated in objective terms.”
    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.