Backus-Brooks Co. v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co.’s Empirical Analysis
21 F.2d 4 · 1927
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 6 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently March 1996 · most notably Bovay v. H. M. Byllesby & Co. (1944), Overfield v. Pennroad Corp. (1944)
12 federal appellate · 6 district · 8 state decisions
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 Texas Pacific Railway Company v. Abilene Cotton Oil Company · Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line Co. · Great Northern Railway Co. v. Merchants Elevator Co. · Siler v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad · Wood v. Carpenter
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“any reasonable doubt of the existence of any particular power,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Whenever, after full hearing upon complaint or upon its own initiative, the Commission is of the opinion that the divisions of joint rates, fares, or charges, applicable to the transportation of passengers or property, are or will be unjust, unreasonable, inequitable, or unduly preferential or prejudicial as between the carriers parties thereto (whether agreed upon by such carriers, or any of them, or otherwise established), the Commission shall by order prescribe the just, reasonable and equitable divisions thereof to be received by the several carriers, and in cases where the joint rate, fare, or charge was established pursuant to a finding or order of the Commission and the divisions thereof are found by it to have been unjust, unreasonable or inequitable, or unduly preferential or prejudicial, the Commission may also by order determine what (for the period subsequent to the filing of the complaint or petition or the making of the order of investigation) would have been the just, reasonable, and equitable adjustment to be made in accordance therewith.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““When a suit is brought within the time fixed by the analogous statute, the burden is on the defendant to show, either from the face of the bill or by his answer, that extraordinary circumstances exist which require the application of the doctrine of loches; and, when such a suit is brought after the statutory time has elapsed, the burden is on the complainant to show, by suitable averments in his bill, that it would be inequitable to apply it to his case.””
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.