Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 166 U.S. 290 - United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Ass'n

United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Ass'n’s Empirical Analysis

166 U.S. 290 · 1897

Citation profile

1,689
cited by 1,689 later decisions
249
cited 249 times by the Supreme Court
41
states following
August 2022
most recently cited

446 federal appellate · 194 district · 297 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 1,689 later decisions (249 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2022 · most notably Connally v. General Construction Co. (1926), United States v. W. T. Grant Co. (1953)

446 federal appellate · 194 district · 297 state decisions — followed in 41 states

221018971900191019201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedthe decision below (from Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Rector Etc of Holy Trinity Church v. United States · In re Debs · Kan-Gi-Shun-Ca · United States v. E. C. Knight Co.

Cited together with United States v. Joint-Traffic Ass'n. · Standard Oil Company of New Jersey v. United States · Addyston Pipe Steel Company v. United States · United States v. W. T. Grant Co. · Swift Company v. United States

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 1,689 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “and when they have not directly spoken, then in the decisions of the courts and the constant practice of the government officials.”
    19 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “It is said that to grant the injunction prayed for in this case is to give the statute a retroactive effect; that the contract, at the time it was entered into, was not prohibited or declared illegal by the statute, as it had not then been passed, and to now enjoin the doing of an act which was legal at the time it was done would be improper. We give to the law no retroactive effect. The agreement in question is a continuing one____ Assuming such action to have been legal at the time the agreement was first entered into, the continuation of the agreement, after it has been declared to be illegal, becomes a violation of the act.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “as a substantial trustee for the public.”
    4 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.