Southern Pacific Company v. Interstate Commerce Commission’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

43 federal appellate · 31 district · 44 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 251 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Tile contention is that although the order made by 1he commission may have been couched in form which would cause it, superficially considered, to appear to be but, the exercise of an authority to correct an unreasonable rate, yet if it plainly results from the record that the order of the commission was not the exercise of such an authority, but based upon the assump-rion by that body of the possession of a power not conferred by law, the more form given by the commission to its action does not relieve the courts from the duty of reviewing and correcting an abuse of power. Applying these propositions, the insistence is that both in form and in substance the order of the commission is void, because it manifests that.that, body did not merely exert the power conferred by law to correct an unjust and unreasonable rate, but that it made the order which is complained of upon the theory that the power was possessed to set aside a just and reasonable rate lawfully fixed by a railroad whenever the commission deemed that it would be equitable to shippers in a particular district to put in farce a reduced rate. That is to say, tlie contention is that the order entered by the commission shows on its face that that body assumed that it had power not merely to prevent the charging of unjust and unreasonable rates, but also to regulate and control the general policy of the owners of railroads as to fixing rates, and consequently that there was authority to substitute for a just and reaso”

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

2. ““What was the nature and character of the order made by the Commission? That is, what, in substance, was the power which the Commission exerted in making the order? Coming to the consideration of that subject, we are of opinion that the court below erred in not restraining the enforcement of the order complained of, because we see no escape from the conclusion that the order was void because it was made in consequence of the assumption by the Commission that it possessed the extreme powers which the railroad companies insist the’ order plainly manifests. We proceed very briefly to state the reasons which compel us to this conclusion. In the first place, when the complaint which was made to the Commission and the answer of the railroad companies to that complaint are considered they give rise to the inference that in substance the subject complained of was not the intrinsic unreasonableness of the new rate which the railroad companies.substituted for the former rate, but the injury it was thought would be suffered from not continuing the old rate in force, an injury arising from circumstances extrinsic to the new rate; that is, a loss which would be suffered by substituting the higher rate, even if that rate was in and of itself reasonable and just. * * * While it is true that the opinion of the Commission may contain some sentences which, when segregated from their context, may give some support to the contention that the order was based upon a consideration merely of the int”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Anchor Coal Co. v. United States

3. ““in view of the possible liability for reparation to which the railroads might be subjected if the legality were not determined, and the influence and effect which the existence of the rate fixed for two years, if it were legal, would have upon the exercise by the railroads of their authority to fix just and reasonable rates in the future.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Railway Employes' Department