Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 222 U.S. 42 - Interstate Commerce Commission v. Diffenbaugh

Interstate Commerce Commission v. Diffenbaugh’s Empirical Analysis

222 U.S. 42 · 1911

Citation profile

249
cited by 249 later decisions
55
cited 55 times by the Supreme Court
6
states following
December 2009
most recently cited

47 federal appellate · 43 district · 17 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 249 later decisions (55 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2009 · most notably St. Joseph Stock Yards Co. v. United States (1936), Chicago Junction Case (1924)

47 federal appellate · 43 district · 17 state decisions

8701911192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

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. Behlmer · Interstate Commerce Commission v. Stickney · Southern Railway Company v. St Louis Hay & Grain Company · Penn Refining Company v. Western New York Pennsylvania Railroad Company G

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

  1. ““The law does not attempt to equalize fortune, opportunities, or abilities.””
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““If the owner of property transported under this act directly or indirectly renders any service connected with such transportation, or furnishes any instrumentality used therein, the charge and allowance therefor shall be no more than is just and reasonable, and the Commission may, after hearing on a complaint, * * * determine what is a reasonable charge as the maximum to be paid by the carrier or carriers for the services so rendered or for the use of the instrumentality so furnished, and fix the same by appropriate order, which order shall have the same force and effect and be enforced in like manner as the orders above provided for under this section.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““Congress clearly recognized that services such as those rendered by Peavey & Co. were services in transportation, and were to be paid for, notwithstanding the possibility that some advantage might be gained as a result.””
    2 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.