Scott v. Interstate Commerce Commission’s Empirical Analysis
213 F.2d 300 · 1954
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently February 1998
3 federal appellate · 5 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
Applies 49 U.S.C. § 303 · 49 U.S.C. § 306 · 49 U.S.C. § 309 · 49 U.S.C. § 322
Relies on A. W. Stickle & Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission · Consumer Mail Order Ass'n of America v. McGrath · Brooks Transp. Co. v. United States · Allen v. United States · Interstate Commerce Commission v. Tank Car Oil Corp.
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Except as provided in section 202(c), section 203(b), in the exception in section 203(a) (14), and in the second proviso in section 206(a) (1), no person shall engage in any for-hire transportation business by motor vehicle, in interstate or foreign commerce, on any public highway or within any reservation under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, unless there is in force with respect to such person a certificate or a permit issued by the Commission authorizing such transportation.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In challenging the judgment, Scott places emphasis upon the point that he purchases the gasoline and other products from the refinery company in Artesia; that title to such products thereupon vests in him; that it remains in him until the products are delivered to Shell Oil Company or other purchasers from him; and that therefore he transports his own property. It is argued in support of the point that Scott bears all loss of gasoline or other products by way of leakage or otherwise occurring before delivery is made to his customers. But Scott’s legal ownership of the products at the time of their transportation is not necessarily controlling in determining whether he acts as a contract carrier or a private carrier. His acquisition of the legal title to the products at the time they are received from the refinery and his parting with such title at the time of the delivery of the products does not necessarily as a rule of thumb entitle him to be classified as a private carrier. [Citation omitted.] Scott’s primary business being that of transporting by motor vehicle in interstate commerce gasoline and other petroleum products under individual contracts or agreements for compensation, he falls within the class of a contract carrier, even though title to such products is vested in him at the time of their transportation. [Citation omitted.] Scott v. Interstate Commerce Commission, supra, 304 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“* * * And section 203(a) (17), 49 U.S.C.A. § 303 (a) (17), in presently pertinent part defines the term “private carrier of property by motor vehicle” to mean any person not included in the term common carrier by motor vehicle or the term contract carrier by motor vehicle, who or which transports in interstate commerce by motor vehicle property of which such person is the owner, when such transportation is for the purpose of sale, or in furtherance of any commercial enterprise. * * * Scott v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 213 F.2d 300, 301 (10th Cir. 1954).”
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.