Gulf Colorado Santa Fe Railway Company v. State of Texas’s Empirical Analysis
204 U.S. 403 · 1907
Citation profile
47 federal appellate · 26 district · 98 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 251 later decisions (21 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2020 · most notably Southern Pacific Terminal Company v. Interstate Commerce Commission (1911), Stafford v. Wallace (1922)
47 federal appellate · 26 district · 98 state decisions — followed in 25 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 United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Ass'n · Coe v. Town of Errol · Robbins v. Taxing District of Shelby Co Tennessee · The Daniel Ball · Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brimson
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 251 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In this respect there is no difference between an interstate passenger and interstate transportation. If Hardin, for instance, had purchased at Hudson an interstate ticket for Texarkana, intending all the while after he reached Texarkana to go on to Goldthwaite, he would not be entitled, on his arrival at Texarkana to a new ticket from Texarkana to Goldthwaite at the proportionate fraction of the rate prescribed by the Interstate Commerce Commission for carriage from Hudson to Goldthwaite. The one contract of the railroad company having been finished, he must make a new contract for his carriage to Goldthwaite, and that would be subject to the laws of the state within which that carriage was to be made.””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In many cases it would work the grossest injustice to a carrier if it could not rely on the contract of shipment it has made, know whether it was bound to obey the state or Federal law, or, obeying the former, find itself mulcted in penalties lor not obeying the law of the other jurisdiction, simply because the shipper intended a transportation beyond that specified in the contract. It must be remembered lhat there is no presumption that a transportation when commenced is to be continued beyond the state limits, and the carrier ought, to be able to depend upon the contract which it has made, and must conform to the liability imposed bv that contract.”
2 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.