Haydo v. Amerikohl Mining, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
830 F.2d 494 · 1987
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently February 2024 · most notably Armstrong World Industries, Inc. v. Adams (1992), Licata v. United States Postal Service (1994)
21 federal appellate · 1 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 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1337 · 30 U.S.C. § 1201 (Abandoned Mine Reclamation Act of 1990) · 30 U.S.C. § 1202 · 30 U.S.C. § 1253 · 30 U.S.C. § 1254 · 30 U.S.C. § 1262
Relies on Mortensen v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n · Yancoskie v. Delaware River Port Authority · Laurel Pipe Line Co. v. Bethlehem Mines Corp.
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a nationwide program to protect society and the environment from the adverse effects of surface coal mining operations.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[P]roviding citizens access to administrative appellate procedures and the courts is a practical and legitimate method of assuring the regulatory authority's compliance with the requirements of the act.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“because Pennsylvania's regulatory plan has been approved by the Secretary, jurisdiction over the alleged violations of the state statute and regulations lies exclusively in the courts of Pennsylvania”
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.