Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 724 F.2d 668 - Cartersville Elevator, Inc. v. Interstate Commerce Commission

Cartersville Elevator, Inc. v. Interstate Commerce Commission’s Empirical Analysis

724 F.2d 668 · 1984

Citation profile

35
cited by 35 later decisions
1
states following
April 2012
most recently cited

23 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently April 2012 · most notably Vieux, California Ass'n of the Physically Handicapped, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission (1987)

23 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

2201984199020002010decided

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 28 U.S.C. § 2344 · 49 U.S.C. § 10903 · 49 U.S.C. § 10905 · 5 U.S.C. § 706

Relies on Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe · Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of United States Inc v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company Consumer Alert · Udall v. Tallman · Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States · Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand 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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[O]pportunity cost is just one of the factors that must be taken into consideration in determining whether abandonment is justified. Merely because a railroad could earn greater revenue by investing its assets elsewhere does not mean that public convenience and necessity requires abandonment.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “only if [it] finds that the present or future public convenience and necessity require or permit the abandonment or discontinuance.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “[t]imeliness of a petition seeking review . . . 'is a jurisdictional requirement that cannot be modified or waived by this court.'”
    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.