General Electric Uranium Management Corp. v. United States Department of Energy’s Empirical Analysis
764 F.2d 896 · 1985
Citation profile
38 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 75 later decisions — most recently May 2018 · most notably Nuclear Energy Institute, Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency (2004), Communities Against Runway Expansion, Inc. v. Federal Aviation Administration (2004)
38 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 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 42 U.S.C. § 10101 (Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982) · 42 U.S.C. § 10131 · 42 U.S.C. § 10138 · 42 U.S.C. § 10139 · 42 U.S.C. § 10193 · 42 U.S.C. § 10196 · 42 U.S.C. § 10197
Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion · Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. State Energy Resources Conservation & Development Commission · United States v. Shimer · Foti v. Immigration & Naturalization Service
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 75 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“exclusive jurisdiction in the court of appeals avoids duplicative review and the attendant delay and expense involved”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“where it is unclear whether review jurisdiction is in the district court or the court of appeals the ambiguity is resolved in favor of the latter”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““First, despite the statute’s lack of clarity, we find every indication from those sections of the statute relied on by DOE, as well as from related sections, and from the structure of the statute as a whole, that Congress intended that the court of appeals would have original and exclusive jurisdiction in cases of this sort. Second, the legislative history, although not illuminating on this question, certainly does not compel a result contrary to the one we reach here. Third, the policy considerations underlying this case, and articulated in other judicial decisions covering analogous statutes, overwhelmingly support our conclusions.””
2 later decisions 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.