Duke Power Co. v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Empirical Analysis
770 F.2d 386 · 1985
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently March 2011 · most notably Maryland Department of Human Resources v. United States Department of Agriculture (1992), Kelley v. Selin (1995)
18 federal appellate · 2 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. § 2342 · 42 U.S.C. § 5841 · 5 U.S.C. § 706
Relies on Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe · Colorado Interstate Gas Co. v. Federal Power Commission · Paul Siegel v. Atomic Energy Commission and United States of America, Florida Power and Light Company, Intervenor. Paul Siegel v. Atomic Energy Commission and United States of America · City of West Chicago, Illinois v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Kerr-Mcgee Chemical Corporation, Intervening City of West Chicago v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Kerr-Mcgee Chemical Corporation and R.G. Page · County of Rockland v. U.S. Nuclear 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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Berg v. Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District · The Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. United States of America, and United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Public Service Company of New Hampshire, Scientists and Engineers for Secure Energy, Inc., Long Island Lighting Company, Nuclear Management and Resources Council, Inc., and Edison Electric Institute, Intervenors. Union of Concerned Scientists v. United States Regulatory Commission and United States of America, Public Service Company of New Hampshire, Nuclear Management and Resources Council, Inc., Edison Electric Institute, Long Island Lighting Company, Citizens Within the 10-Mile Radius, Inc., and Scientists and Engineers for Secure Energy, Inc., Intervenors. State of New York, Mario Cuomo, Governor, and County of Suffolk v. United States of America and United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Public Service Company of New Hampshire, Nuclear Management and Resources Council, Inc., Edison Electric Institute, Long Island Lighting Company, and Scientists and Engineers for Secure Energy, Inc., Intervenors“One of the most emotional issues confronting our society today is the adequacy of safety measures at nuclear power facilities.... [T]he debate over nuclear safety persists as public interest groups charge that serious problems remain and operator-utilities seek to assure the public that all reasonable measures have been taken to protect surrounding populations in the event of a major nuclear accident. But it is the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission ... which must decide the difficult questions concerning nuclear power safety. 709 F.2d at 766.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 , 416, 91 S.Ct. 814, 823, 28 L.Ed.2d 136 (1971); accord, e.g., Duke Power Co. v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 770 F.2d 386 , 390 (4th Cir.1985).”
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.