Conoco, Inc. v. Skinner’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1631 · 28 U.S.C. § 1651 · 28 U.S.C. § 2341 · 28 U.S.C. § 2342 · 46 U.S.C. § 12101 · 46 U.S.C. § 12104 · 46 U.S.C. § 12106 · 46 U.S.C. § 12118
Relies on Gregg v. Georgia · McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. · Griswold v. State of Connecticut · Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc. · Consolo v. Federal Maritime 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“To avoid unintended and anomalous results, statutes authorizing review of specified agency actions should be construed to allow review of agency actions which are 'functionally similar' or 'tantamount to' those specified actions.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Conoco, Inc. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours and Co., in No. 91-3589 v. Samuel K. Skinner, Secretary of Transportation Warren G. Leback, Maritime Administrator and the United States of America. Conoco, Inc. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours and Co., in No. 91-3920 v. Samuel K. Skinner, Secretary of Transportation Nicholas F. Brady William A. Kime, Commandant of the Coast Guard Warren G. Leback, Administrator, U.S. Department of Transportation Carol B. Hallett, Commissioner of Customs, U.S. Customs Service · Conoco Inc“plaintiff has not demonstrated that the Customs Service is essential to proper determination of the issues or that it would not be bound by the determination of the issues involved.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Conoco, Inc. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours and Co., in No. 91-3589 v. Samuel K. Skinner, Secretary of Transportation Warren G. Leback, Maritime Administrator and the United States of America. Conoco, Inc. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours and Co., in No. 91-3920 v. Samuel K. Skinner, Secretary of Transportation Nicholas F. Brady William A. Kime, Commandant of the Coast Guard Warren G. Leback, Administrator, U.S. Department of Transportation Carol B. Hallett, Commissioner of Customs, U.S. Customs Service · Conoco Inc“absent clear and convincing evidence of a contrary congressional intent.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Conoco, Inc. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours and Co., in No. 91-3589 v. Samuel K. Skinner, Secretary of Transportation Warren G. Leback, Maritime Administrator and the United States of America. Conoco, Inc. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours and Co., in No. 91-3920 v. Samuel K. Skinner, Secretary of Transportation Nicholas F. Brady William A. Kime, Commandant of the Coast Guard Warren G. Leback, Administrator, U.S. Department of Transportation Carol B. Hallett, Commissioner of Customs, U.S. Customs Service · Conoco Inc
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.