Itel Corporation v. United States Railroad Retirement Board’s Empirical Analysis
710 F.2d 1243 · 1983
Citation profile
16 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently June 2001
16 federal appellate ·
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 45 U.S.C. § 151 (Railway Labor Act) · 45 U.S.C. § 231 (Railroad Retirement Act of 1974) · 45 U.S.C. § 231F (Railroad Retirement Act of 1974) · 45 U.S.C. § 351 · 49 U.S.C. § 10101 (Bus Regulatory Reform Act of 1982) · 49 U.S.C. § 10102
Relies on Udall v. Tallman · Consumer Product Safety Commission v. GTE Sylvania, Inc. · Unemployment Compensation Commission v. Aragon · Gray v. Powell · General American Tank Car Corporation v. El Dorado Terminal Co
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Congress chose, painting broadly, to cover all employees of rail carriers, whether or not they suffered the problems of interstate commerce. Congress foresaw and provided statutory tools to halt rail carriers who sought to undermine the Acts by creating subsidiaries who in fact exist only to serve their rail carrier parents and whose primary purpose is to remove workers from the Acts' coverage. Southern Development and Despatch vindicate this congressional foresight. The Board does not argue that ITEL’s Rail Division exists primarily or even substantially to serve the rail carrier subsidiaries, or that ITEL’s actions removed previously-covered workers from the Acts.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“'unless [the interpretation] is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation.' " Udall v. Tallman, 380 U.S. 1 , 16-17, 85 S.Ct. 792, 801, 13 L.Ed.2d 616 (1965) (quoting Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410 , 414, 65 S.Ct. 1215, 1217, 89 L.Ed. 1700 (1945)); ITEL Corp. v. United States Railroad Retirement Board, 710 F.2d 1243 , 1244 (7th Cir.1983) ("A 'reasonable basis' test is appropriate when passing upon an agency's construction of the statutes which it administers.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“In Southern Development ... a rail carrier established a wholly-owned subsidiary to operate and maintain the railroad’s office building. The employees of the subsidiary were originally employees of the railroad, and, by virtue of the railroad’s actions, the railroad sought to deprive these employees of their RRA and RUIA benefits____ There was no question that the railroad’s actions intentionally undermined the Acts____ Similarly, in Despatch Shops ... a wholly-owned subsidiary which performed repair and construction of rolling stock and whose primary function was to service its railroad parent was found to be an employer under RUIA and RRA.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.