O'CONNER v. Commonwealth Edison Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently September 2015 · most notably O'Conner v. Commonwealth Edison Co. (1994), United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit (1991)
7 federal appellate · 3 district ·
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. § 1292 · 42 U.S.C. § 2011 (Atomic Energy Act of 1954) · 42 U.S.C. § 2014 (Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009) · 42 U.S.C. § 2210 (Radiation Exposure Compensation Act)
Relies on 33 Ill. 2d 326 - Darling v. Charleston Community Memorial Hospital · 64 Ill. 2d 380 - Davis v. Marathon Oil Co. · 56 Ill. 2d 22 - Barnes v. Washington · Laswell v. Brown · 35 Ill. App. 3d 703 - Dezort v. Village of Hinsdale
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'[State] law would be inconsistent with federal law and the federal law would take precedence.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The court may adopt as a standard of conduct of a reasonable man the requirements of a legislative enactment or administrative regulation whose purpose is found to be exclusively or in part (a) to protect a class of persons which includes the one whose interest is invaded, and (b) to protect a particular interest which is invaded, and (c) to protect that interest against the kind of harm that has resulted, and (d) to protect that interest against the particular hazard from which the harm results.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“These federal permissible dose limits are based upon the national and international scientific consensus as to the hypothetical risk from exposure to low occupational levels of ionizing radiation.... In determining the likelihood of the injury from radiation, this Court believes that it should give deference to the administrative regulations which are the result of the agency’s applied expertise.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re TMI
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.