Tenore v. AT & T WIRELESS SERVICES’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 80 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 90 later decisions — most recently December 2021 · most notably Weinberg v. Sprint Corp. (2002), Postema v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd. (2000)
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 80 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 29 U.S.C. § 1144 (§ 514 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 47 U.S.C. § 201 · 47 U.S.C. § 202 · 47 U.S.C. § 203 · 47 U.S.C. § 332 · 47 U.S.C. § 414
Relies on Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Taylor · Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc. · United States v. Western Pacific Railroad · Texas Pacific Railway Company v. Abilene Cotton Oil Company · Maislin Industries, U. S., Inc. v. Primary Steel, Inc.
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 90 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“only if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts which would justify recovery.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“The “filed rate” doctrine, also known as the “filed tariff” doctrine, is a court-created rule to bar suits against regulated utilities involving allegations concerning the reasonableness of the filed rates. This doctrine provides, in essence, that any “filed rate” — a rate filed with and approved by the governing regulatory agency — is per se reasonable and cannot be the subject of legal action against the private entity that filed it. The purposes of the “filed rate” doctrine are twofold: (1) to preserve the agency’s primary jurisdiction to determine the reasonableness of rates, and (2) to insure that regulated entities charge only those rates approved by the agency. These principles serve to provide safeguards against price discrimination and are essential in stabilizing prices. But this doctrine, which operates under the assumption that the public is conclusively presumed to have knowledge of the filed rates, has often been invoked rigidly, even to bar claims arising from fraud or misrepresentation.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“`only in the unusual case in which plaintiff includes allegations that show on the face of the complaint that there is some insuperable bar to relief.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.