Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Mottley’s Empirical Analysis
219 U.S. 467 · 1911
Citation profile
205 federal appellate · 85 district · 260 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 970 later decisions (131 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2026 · most notably Usery v. Turner Elkhorn Mining Co. (1976), Armstrong v. United States (1960)
205 federal appellate · 85 district · 260 state decisions — followed in 38 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 Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Mottley · Gibbons v. Ogden · Rector Etc of Holy Trinity Church v. United States · Texas Pacific Railway Company v. Abilene Cotton Oil Company · Addyston Pipe Steel Company v. United States
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 970 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“. . . After the commerce act came into effect, no contract that was inconsistent with the regulations established by the act of Congress could be enforced in any court. The rule upon this subject is thoroughly established.”
16 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““But an examination of the schedules would be of no avail and would not ordinarily be of any practical value if the published rates could be disregarded in special or particular cases by the acceptance of property of various kinds, and of such value as the parties immediately concerned chose to put upon it, in place of money for the services performed by the carrier.””
15 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ . . . charge or demand or collect or receive a greater or less or different compensation for such transportation of passengers or property, or for any service in connection therewith . nor shall any carrier refund or remit in any manner or by any device any portion of the rates, fares, and charges so specified, nor extend to any shipper or person any privileges or facilities in the transportation of passengers or property, except such as are specified in such tariffs.” (Emphasis supplied)”
3 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.