Packard Elevator v. Interstate Commerce Commission’s Empirical Analysis
782 F.2d 112 · 1986
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 14 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently August 2023 · most notably Iowa Utilities Board v. Federal Communications Commission (1996), Baxter International, Inc. v. Morris (1992)
10 federal appellate · 14 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 49 U.S.C. § 10901 · 49 U.S.C. § 11301
Relies on Dataphase Systems, Inc. v. C L Systems, Inc. · Federal Trade Commission v. Dean Foods Co. · Wisconsin Gas Co. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission · James River Flood Control Ass'n v. Watt
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) that it is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) that it will suffer irreparable injury unless the stay is granted; (3) that no substantial harm will come to other interested parties; and (4) that the stay will do no harm to the public interest.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[The Court’s] focus on likelihood of success on the merits as a threshold issue should not be construed to lessen the importance of irreparable harm in the Dataphase analysis. ‘The basis of injunctive relief in the federal courts has always been irreparable harm and inadequacy of legal remedies.’ Indeed, in some cases, lack of irreparable injury is the factor that should begin and end the Dataphase analysis. In this respect, where a duly enacted statute is involved, a likelihood of success on the merits may be characterized as one, but not the only, threshold showing that must be met by a movant for a preliminary injunction.”
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.