Pennzoil Co. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s Empirical Analysis
742 F.2d 242 · 1984
Citation profile
12 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently December 2018
12 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 15 U.S.C. § 3301 (Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 3416 · 15 U.S.C. § 717 · 15 U.S.C. § 717R
Relies on Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner · Federal Trade Commission v. Standard Oil Co. · Petroleum Exploration, Inc. v. Public Service Commission · Pennzoil Co. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission · Placid Oil Co. v. Federal Energy Regulatory 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) whether the issues presented are purely legal; (2) whether the challenged agency action constitutes 'final agency action’ within the meaning of the Administrative Procedure Act; (3) whether the challenged agency action has or will have a direct and immediate impact on the petitioner; and (4) whether the resolution of the issues will foster, rather than impede, effective enforcement and administration by that agency-”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'[T]he only impact which [Pennzoil] ... would suffer if [the order] ... is not now reviewed is delay in final resolution of the ... proceedings now in progress.' We do not believe that the burden of participating in the proceeding before the ALJ is sufficient to constitute the requisite irreparable harm to Pennzoil.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“within the meaning of the APA. Id. at 244. This court concluded that review was inappropriate because: 35 [t]he Commission has not yet made a final determination on the two issues which are at the heart of the present controversy.... At this point in the proceeding the Commission has, at most, simply denied Pennzoil's Motion For Summary Judgment. The Commission will have another opportunity to rule on Pennzoil's contentions when it reviews the ALJ's decision at the conclusion of the proceeding before him. Were we to intervene with judicial review at this stage in the proceeding, we would be”
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.