Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s Empirical Analysis
730 F.2d 1509 · 1984
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently November 2015 · most notably Rhode Island v. Narragansett Indian Tribe (1994), Koropoulos v. Credit Bureau, Inc. (1984)
26 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 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 16 U.S.C. § 796 (§ 3 of the Federal Power Act of 1920) · 16 U.S.C. § 797 (§ 4 of the Federal Power Act of 1920) · 16 U.S.C. § 800 (§ 7 of the Federal Power Act of 1920) · 16 U.S.C. § 825 (§ 301 of the Federal Power Act of 1920) · 16 U.S.C. § 825G (§ 308 of the Federal Power Act of 1920) · 16 U.S.C. § 825L (§ 313 of the Federal Power Act of 1920) · 42 U.S.C. § 7171 · 42 U.S.C. § 7172
Relies on Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. · Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner · Skidmore v. Swift & Co. · Consumer Product Safety Commission v. GTE Sylvania, Inc. · Chrysler Corporation v. Brown
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.
“[i]t would be grossly unfair to deny judicial review to a petitioner objecting to an agency’s refusal to grant party status on the basis that the petitioner lacks party status.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]t would be unfair to declare the denial of an untimely effort to reopen a proceeding to be unreviewable, when the basis of the effort is the contention that, because a required notice was not given, a timely objection was infeasible. As Judge Wilkey wrote for this court in City of Rochester v. Bond, 603 F.2d 927, 928 (D.C.Cir.1979), where “a complainant was not a party to the agency proceeding, and * * * [where] a complainant objects to the agency’s failure to give notice[,] * * * the proper course is to seek reconsideration by the agency. If the matter is reopened, any ensuing final order then may be reviewed in accordance with the review statute. If[,] on the other hand, the agency for any reason declines to reopen the matter, that decision itself would be a statutorily reviewable order.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“provision, it did little to explain, in terms of the statute’s language, structure, or history, why the concerns for protecting shippers from carrier monopoly power were met by that standard. In light of this absence of explanation, we note “that the limit placed on the judicial role by an agency’s interpretation of a statute 'assumes an adequately articulated administrative decision interpreting the relevant statutory law within a range of reasonableness.’”
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.