United States v. Sutton’s Empirical Analysis
795 F.2d 1040 · 1986
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 8 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently September 2010 · most notably 224 Ill. 2d 274 - Forsythe v. Clark USA, Inc. (2007), Esmark, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board (1989)
3 federal appellate · 8 district · 3 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 15 U.S.C. § 751 · 15 U.S.C. § 766 · 18 U.S.C. § 1505 · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 28 U.S.C. § 1961 · 42 U.S.C. § 6201 (Alternative Motor Fuels Act of 1988) · 42 U.S.C. § 6371 · 42 U.S.C. § 6861
Relies on Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc. · Fisher v. United States · Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Chadha · Thorpe v. Housing Authority of Durham · Boyce Motor Lines, Inc. v. United States
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Whenever it appears to any person authorized by the President to exercise authority under this title that any individual or organization has engaged ... in any acts or practices constituting a violation of any order or regulation under this title, such person may request the Attorney General to bring an action in the appropriate district court of the United States to enjoin such acts or practices- In addition to such injunctive relief, the court may also order restitution of moneys received in violation of any such order or regulation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“in a given month than its allocated number of entitlements, it was required to purchase additional entitlements. Conversely, if a refiner failed to use its allotted entitlements, it was required to sell its excess entitlements. The cost of an entitlement was set by the Department of Energy and was generally equal to the difference in price between the average cost of”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“). The EPAA established a three-tier pricing system for first sales of crude oil. Under these provisions, there were two levels of price controlled oil (lower tier, or old oil, and upper tier or new oil), as well as free market priced oil. Production up to a level set during a base period was sold as old oil, the excess could be sold at a higher controlled price as”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.