green
Positive treatment
3.4 score
Treatment trajectory · 1983 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1983
2004
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
General Motors Corp. v. Kilgore
See Pennsylvania Public Utility Com. v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 461 U.S. 912 , 103 S.Ct. 1888 , 77 L.Ed.2d 280 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see"
No. 96-4676 Non-Argument Calendar
See United States v. Meeks, 642 F.2d 733, 735 (5th Cir. Unit A April 1981) ("Hankins never made clear that his claim of privilege was directed solely against explaining what role he might have played in the fact that records were no longer available rather than a general claim that the records within themselves might incriminate him."), vacated, 461 U.S. 912 , 103 S.Ct. 1889 , 77 L.Ed.2d 280 (1983). 25 Thus, for the Court to treat appellant's statement as a waiver would create an intolerable result, placing appellant in the position of remaining silent and being held in contempt for failing to…
discussed
Cited "see"
Grand Jury Proceedings, In Re:
See United States v. Meeks, 642 F.2d 733, 735 (5th Cir. Unit A, April 1981) ("Hankins never made clear that his claim of privilege was directed solely against explaining what role he might have played in the fact that records were no longer available rather than a general claim that the records within themselves might incriminate him."), vacated, 461 U.S. 912 , 103 S.Ct. 1889 , 77 L.Ed.2d 280 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see"
Grand Jury Subpoena Dated April 9, 1996 v. Smith
See United States v. Meeks, 642 F.2d 733, 735 (5th Cir. Unit A April 1981) (“Hankins never made clear that his claim of privilege was directed solely against explaining what role he might have played in the fact that records were no longer available rather than a general claim that the records within themselves might incriminate him.”), vacated, 461 U.S. 912 , 103 S.Ct. 1889 , 77 L.Ed.2d 280 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see"
Santini v. Consolidated Rail Corp.
See Consolidated Rail Corporation v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (E.D.Pa., 1982), 536 F.Supp. 653 , aff'd (3rd Cir.1982) 696 F.2d 981 , aff'd (1983), 461 U.S. 912 , 103 S.Ct. 1888 , 77 L.Ed.2d 280 (assuming proper test for preemption of Pennsylvania statute requiring locomotives to have speed recorders and indicators was contained in Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970, 45 U.S.C. § 434 , state statute was preempted because federal regulation covered same subject matter); National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners v. Coleman (3rd Cir.1976) 542 F.2d 11 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission
v.
Consolidated Rail Corporation
v.
Consolidated Rail Corporation
No. 82-1555.
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 2, 1983.
Cited by 4 opinions | Published
Affirmed on appeal from C. A. 3d Cir.