Chance v. Lambeth’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 federal appellate · 1 district ·

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

1. ““We reach the conclusion that the railroad regulation now before us must be declared invalid. Not only does its enforcement interfere. with the uniformity which should characterize interstate carriage from one end of the route to the other, but its irregular enforcement for the convenience of the carrier, dependent upon the number of passengers and the character of accommodations which they purchase, adds to the burden upon the traffic by increasing the confusion and discomfort of the passengeis. When white and colored passengers are permitted to ride together for part of their journey through the State of Virginia, and then are compelled to separate and change cars, and when passengers in coaches are segregated on account of race while passengers in Pullman and dining cars are permitted to ride together irrespective of race, the burden upon interstate commerce is as clearly manifest as. that imposed by the statute of Virginia ■ which was invalidated in the Morgan case. It is true that the regulation of the carrier was not enacted by state authority, although the power of the state is custo.marily invoked to enforce it; but we know of no principle of law . which requires the courts to strike down a state statute which interferes with interstate commerce but to uphold a railroad regulation which is infected with the same vice.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 111 F. Supp. 329 - Williams v. Carolina Coach Co.

2. ““The regulation and its enforcement in this case is attacked upon a number of grounds but we find it necessary to ‘ consider only one, namely, that it unlawfully burdens interstate commerce and is therefore repugnant to Clause 3, Section 8 of Article 1 of the Federal Constitution which empowers Congress to regulate commerce among the several states. Strong light has been thrown by decisions of the Supreme Court, some of recent date, upon the validity of state laws and railroad regulations which require the segregation of the races or discriminate between them in public conveyances in this country.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 111 F. Supp. 329 - Williams v. Carolina Coach Co.

3. ““In the last mentioned cases the court did not reach certain constitutional questions suggested by the complainant, but in all the cases, whether the decision was based upon a violation of a provision of the constitution or of a statute of the United States, the problem under consideration was the standard of conduct to be observed by interstate carriers in dealing with members of the traveling public.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 111 F. Supp. 329 - Williams v. Carolina Coach Co.