Anderson v. USAir, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
818 F.2d 49 · 1987
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 21 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 70 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2018 · most notably Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. v. Bonjorno (1990), Chaveriat v. Williams Pipe Line Co. (1993)
19 federal appellate · 21 district · 9 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. § 292 · 29 U.S.C. § 794
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Foman v. Davis · Cort v. Ash · Cannon v. University of Chicago · Bradley v. School Board of City of Richmond
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 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[N]o state or political subdivision thereof and no interstate agency or other political agency of two or more states shall enact or enforce any law, rule, regulation, standard or other provision having the force and effect of law relating to rates, routes, or services of any air carrier having authority under Title IV of this chapter to provide air transportation.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“(1) [Wjhether the plaintiff is one of the class for whose benefit the statute was enacted; (2) whether some indication exists of legislative intent, explicit or implicit, either to create or to deny a private remedy; (3) whether implying a private right of action is consistent with the underlying purposes of the legislative scheme; and (4) whether the cause of action is one traditionally relegated to state law, such that it would be inappropriate for the court to infer a cause of action based solely on federal law.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) No air carrier may discriminate against any otherwise qualified handicapped individual, by reason of such handicap, in the provision of air transportation.”
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.