Interstate Commerce Commission v. Stickney’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 federal appellate · 11 district · 8 state decisions

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

1. “‘•By section 15 the Commission is authorized and required, upon a complaint, to inquire and determine what would be a just and reasonable rate or rates, charge or charges. This, oí course, includes all charges, and the carrier is entitled to have a finding that any particular charge is unreasonable and unjust before it is required to change such charge. For services that it may render or procure to be rendered off its own.lino, or outside the more matter of transportation over its line, it may charge and receive comnensation. Southern Railway Co. v. St. Louis Hay & Grain Co., 214 U. S. 297 [ 29 Sup. Ct. 678 , 53 L. Ed. 1004 ].””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Atlantic Coast Line R. v. Interstate Commerce Commission · Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. United States

2. ““ ‘If the terminal charge be in and of itself just and reasonable it cannot be condemned or the carrier required to change it on the ground that it, taken with prior charges of transportation over the lines of the carrier or of connecting carriers, makes the total charge to the shipper unreasonable. That which must be corrected and condemned is not the just and reasonable terminal charge, but those prior charges which must of themselves be unreasonable in order to make the aggregate of the charge from the point of shipment to that of delivery unreasonable and unjust. In order to avail itself of the benefit of this rule the carrier must separately state its terminal or other special charge complained of, for if many matters are lumped in a single charge it is impossible for either shipper or commission to determine how much of the lump charge is for the terminal or special services. * * * ’ “But this statement must be viewed in the light of the circumstances which were then before the court. As we said of this ease in Associated Jobbers of Los Angeles v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 18 I. C. C. 310 , the opinion ‘holds that a carrier is justified in charging a reasonable rate for a delivery which it can not make upon its own line, and that this rate, when separately stated, must be judged as to its reasonableness by itself.’ Quoting again from the opinion on page 109 [of 215 U. S., 30 S. Ct. 66]: “ ‘If any shipper is wronged by the aggregate charge from the plaee of shipment to the”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Alton & S. R. R. v. United States

3. ““The carrier is under no obligation to charge for terminal services. Business interests may justify it in waiving any such charge, and it will he considered to have waived it unless it makes plain to both shipper and commission that it is insisting upon it.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission