Wilson v. A. H. Belo Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

43 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions

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 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “vest the courts of appeals with exclusive jurisdiction to review the validity of FCC rulings.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Us West Communications, Inc., and United States of America, Intervenor v. Roger Hamilton, Chairman of the Oregon Public Utility Commission Ron Eachus, Commissioner of the Oregon Public Utility Commission Joan H. Smith, Commissioner of the Oregon Public Utility Commission Oregon Public Utility Commission MCI Metro Access Transmission Services, Inc. Sprint Communications, and At&t Communications of the Pacific Northwest, Inc., Us West Communications, Inc., and United States of America, Intervenor v. Roger Hamilton, Chairman of the Oregon Public Utility Commission Ron Eachus, Commissioner of the Oregon Public Utility Commission Joan H. Smith, Commissioner of the Oregon Public Utility Commission Oregon Public Utility Commission At&t Communications of the Pacific Northwest, Inc. Sprint Communications, and MCI Metro Access Transmission Services, Inc., Us West Communications, Inc. v. Worldcom Technologies, Inc. · United States v. Dunifer

2. “exclusive jurisdiction to enjoin, set aside, suspend (in whole or in part), or to determine the validity of . . . all final orders of the Federal Communications Commission made reviewable by section 402(a) of title 47. " Id. Section 402(a), in turn, encompasses "[a]ny proceeding to enjoin, set aside, annul, or suspend any order of the Commission under [the Communications Act of 1934, as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996],”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Us West Communications, Inc., and United States of America, Intervenor v. Roger Hamilton, Chairman of the Oregon Public Utility Commission Ron Eachus, Commissioner of the Oregon Public Utility Commission Joan H. Smith, Commissioner of the Oregon Public Utility Commission Oregon Public Utility Commission MCI Metro Access Transmission Services, Inc. Sprint Communications, and At&t Communications of the Pacific Northwest, Inc., Us West Communications, Inc., and United States of America, Intervenor v. Roger Hamilton, Chairman of the Oregon Public Utility Commission Ron Eachus, Commissioner of the Oregon Public Utility Commission Joan H. Smith, Commissioner of the Oregon Public Utility Commission Oregon Public Utility Commission At&t Communications of the Pacific Northwest, Inc. Sprint Communications, and MCI Metro Access Transmission Services, Inc., Us West Communications, Inc. v. Worldcom Technologies, Inc. · US West Communications, Inc. v. Hamiton

3. “We consider initially the jurisdiction of the District Court to enjoin FCC action as ultra vires. Exclusive jurisdiction for review of final FCC orders, such as the FCC’s denial of respondents’ rulemaking petition, lies in the Court of Appeals. 28 U.S.C. § 2342 (1); 47 U.S.C. § 402 (a). Litigants may not evade these provisions by requesting the District Court to enjoin action that is the outcome of the agency’s order.....Yet that is what respondents have sought to do in this case. In substance, the complaint filed in the District Court raised the same issues and sought to enforce the same restrictions upon agency conduct as did the petition for rulemaking that was denied by the FCC.... The appropriate procedure for obtaining judicial review of the agency’s disposition of these issues was appeal to the Court of Appeals as provided by statute.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 26 F. Supp. 2d 993 - Michigan Bell Telephone Co. v. Strand