Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brimson’s Empirical Analysis
154 U.S. 447 · 1894
Citation profile
243 federal appellate · 63 district · 142 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 786 later decisions (129 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2020 · most notably Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. (1982), Weeks v. United States (1914)
243 federal appellate · 63 district · 142 state decisions — followed in 29 states
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
Relies on Boyd v. United States · M'Culloch v. State of Maryland · Gibbons v. Ogden · Osborn v. President Directors and Company of the Bank of the United States · Counselman v. Hitchcock
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 786 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“be committed to a subordinate administrative or executive tribunal for final determination.”
13 later decisions quote this exact passage““An adjudication that congress could not establish an administrative body with authority to investigate the subject of interstate commerce, and with power to call witnesses before it, and to require the production of books, documents, and papers relating to that subject, would go far toward defeating the object for which the people of the United States placed commerce among the states under national control. All must recognize the fact that the full information necessary as a basis of intelligent legislation by congress from time to time upon the subject of interstate commerce cannot be obtained, nor can the rules established for the regulation of such commerce be efficiently enforced, otherwise than through the instrumentality of an administrative body, representing the whole country, always watchful of the general interests, and charged with the duty, not only of obtaining the required information, but of compelling, by all lawful methods, obedience to such rules.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In case of contumacy or refusal to obey a subpoena issued to any person, any district court of the United States ... within the jurisdiction of which the inquiry is carried on or within the jurisdiction of which said person guilty of contumacy or refusal to obey is found or resides or transacts business, upon application by the Board shall have jurisdiction to issue to such person an order requiring such person to appear before the Board, its member, agent, or agency, there to produce evidence if so ordered”
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.