Clark-Cowlitz Joint Operating Agency v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s Empirical Analysis
826 F.2d 1074 · 1987
Citation profile
69 federal appellate · 12 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 123 later decisions — most recently January 2018 · most notably Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1988), Garfias-Rodriguez v. Holder (2012)
69 federal appellate · 12 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 16 U.S.C. § 800 (§ 7 of the Federal Power Act of 1920) · 16 U.S.C. § 803 (§ 10 of the Federal Power Act of 1920) · 16 U.S.C. § 807 (§ 14 of the Federal Power Act of 1920) · 16 U.S.C. § 808 (§ 15 of the Federal Power Act of 1920) · 16 U.S.C. § 825L (§ 313 of the Federal Power Act of 1920) · 5 U.S.C. § 551 (Administrative Procedure Act of 1946) · 5 U.S.C. § 554 (Administrative Procedure Act of 1946) · 5 U.S.C. § 706
Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of United States Inc v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company Consumer Alert · Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Cardoza-Fonseca · Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation Same · Montana 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 123 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) Whether the particular case is one of first impression, (2) whether the new rule represents an abrupt departure from well-established practice or merely attempts to fill a void in an unsettled area of law, (3) the extent to which the party against whom the new rule is applied relied on the former rule, (4) the degree of burden which a retroactive order imposes on a party, and (5) the statutory interest in applying a new rule despite the reliance of a party on the old standard.”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“framework for evaluating retroactive application of rules announced in agency adjudications.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]ssue preclusion ... attaches only to such issues as the parties litigated adversely to each other in the prior litigation.”
2 later decisions 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.