Smyth v. Ames’s Empirical Analysis
169 U.S. 466 · 1898
Citation profile
316 federal appellate · 251 district · 628 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,977 later decisions (195 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2025 · most notably Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), Ex Parte: Edward T Young (1908)
316 federal appellate · 251 district · 628 state decisions — followed in 49 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 M'Culloch v. State of Maryland · Osborn v. President Directors and Company of the Bank of the United States · Chicago Co v. City of Chicago · Munn v. Illinois
Cited together with Reagan v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. · Federal Power Commission v. Hope Natural Gas Co. · Simpson v. Shepard · State of Missouri Southwestern Bell Telephone Co v. Public Service Commission of Missouri · Ex Parte: Edward T Young
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 1,977 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[h]ow such compensation may be ascertained, and what are the necessary elements in such an inquiry, will always be an embarrassing question.”
51 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ * * * the reasonableness or unreasonableness of rates prescribed by .a state for the transportation of persons and property' wholly within its limits must be determined without reference to the interstate business done ‘by the carrier, or to the profits derived from it. The state cannot justify unreasonably low rates for domestic •transportation, considered alone, upon ■the ground that the carrier is earning large profits on its interstate business, •over which, so far as rates are, con■cerned, the state has no control. Nor •can the carrier justify unreasonably high rates on domestic business upon the ground that it will be able only in that way to meet losses on its interstate business. So far as rates of transportation are concerned, domestic business should, not be made to bear the losses on interstate business, nor the latter the losses on domestic business.””
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““One who is entitled to sue in the Federal Circuit Court may invoke its jurisdiction in equity whenever the established principles and rules of equity permit such a suit in that court; and he cannot be deprived of that right by reason of his being allowed to sue at law in a state court on the same cause of action. * * * If the case in its essence be one cognizable in equity, the plaintiff—the required value being in dispute—may invoke the equity powers of the proper Circuit Court of the United States whenever jurisdiction attaches by reason of diverse citizenship or upon any other ground of Federal jurisdiction.””
7 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.