Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 161 U.S. 677 - Louisville Co v. Commonwealth of Kentucky

Louisville Co v. Commonwealth of Kentucky’s Empirical Analysis

161 U.S. 677 · 1896

Citation profile

205
cited by 205 later decisions
29
cited 29 times by the Supreme Court
31
states following
March 2016
most recently cited

16 federal appellate · 14 district · 95 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 205 later decisions (29 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2016 · most notably Mondou v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad (1912), Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

16 federal appellate · 14 district · 95 state decisions — followed in 31 states

8101896190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Mugler v. State of Kansas State of Kansas Tufts · Munn v. Illinois · Welton v. The State of Missouri · Central Transportation Co. v. Pullman's Palace Car Co. · Crutcher v. Commonwealth of Kentucky

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

  1. ““It has never been supposed that the dominant power of Congress over interstate commerce took from the states the power of legislation with respect to the instruments of such commerce, so far as the legislation was within its ordinary police powers.””
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““These cases Freferring to various cases referred to in the opinion], however, do not infringe upon the general principles, so frequently declared, that, where the police power is invoked in good faith for the prohibition of a practice which llie legislature has declared to be detrimental to the public inierests, it will be sustained, wherever it can be done without the impairment of vested rights. Notwithstanding these cases, the general rule holds good that whatever is contrary to public policy or inimical to the public interests is subject to the police power of the state, and within legislative control; and in the'exercise of such power the legislature is vested with a large discretion, which, if exercised bona fide for the protection of the public, is beyond the reach of judicial inquiry.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““It has been too often held that railways were public highways, and their functions were those of the state, though their ownership was private, and that they were subject to control for the common good, to be now open to question.””
    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.