Hanley v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co.’s Empirical Analysis
187 U.S. 617 · 1903
Citation profile
31 federal appellate · 15 district · 111 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 260 later decisions (45 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2011 · most notably Simpson v. Shepard (1913), Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line Co. (1908)
31 federal appellate · 15 district · 111 state decisions — followed in 26 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 Smyth v. Ames · Gloucester Ferry Co v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania · Hall v. DeCuir · Wabash St Ry Co v. State of Illinois · Covington Bridge Co 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 260 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““‘To bring the transportation within the control of the state, as part of its domestic commerce, the subject transported must be within the entire voyage under the exclusive jurisdiction of the state.’””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The transportation for others, as an independent business, is commerce, irrespective of the purpose to sell or retain the goods which the owner may entertain with regard to them after they shall have been delivered.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““These decisions were made simply out of deference to conclusions drawn from Lehigh Valley Railroad v. Pennsylvania, 145 U. S. 192 , and we are of opinion .that they carry their conclusions too far. That was the case of a tax, and was distinguished expressly from an attempt by the state directly to regulate the transportation while outside its borders ( 145 U. S. 204 ). And although it was intimated that, for the purposes before the court,,to some extent commerce by transportation might have its character fixed by the relation between the two ends of the transit, the intimation was carefully confined to those purposes. Moreover, the tax was determined in respect of receipts for the proportion of the transportation within the state ( 145 U. S. 201 ). Such a proportioned tax had been sustained in the case of commerce admitted to be interstate. (Maine v. Grand Trunk Railway Co., 142 U. S. 217 .) Whereas it is decided, as we have said, that when a rate is established it must be established as a whole.” (p. 621.)”
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.