Interstate Commerce Commission v. Union Pacific Railroad’s Empirical Analysis
222 U.S. 541 · 1912
Citation profile
73 federal appellate · 221 district · 155 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 921 later decisions (103 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2023 · most notably Norwegian Nitrogen Products Co. v. United States (1933), Rochester Telephone Corporation v. United States (1939)
73 federal appellate · 221 district · 155 state decisions — followed in 31 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 Interstate Commerce Commission v. Illinois Central Railroad · Illinois Central Railroad Company v. Interstate Commerce Commission · Southern Pacific Company v. Interstate Commerce Commission · Interstate Commerce Commission v. Alabama Midland Railway Co.
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 921 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the strength due to the judgments of a tribunal appointed by law and informed by experience.”
19 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Where the rates as a whole are under consideration, there is a possibility of deciding, with more or less certainty, whether the total earnings afford a reasonable return. But whether the carrier earned dividends or not sheds little light on the question as to whether the rate on a particular article is reasonable. For, if the carrier’s total income enables it to declare a dividend, that would not justify an order requiring it to haul one class of goods for nothing, or for less than a reasonable rate. On the other hand, if the carrier earned no dividend, it would not have warranted an order fixing an unreasonably high rate on such article.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Neither can any specific effect be given to the statement of witnesses that the 40-cent rate was low. The reasonableness of rates cannot be proved by categorical answers, like those given, where a witness may, in terms, testify that the goods were worth so much per pound, or the services worth so much a day. Too many elements are involved in fixing a rate on a particular article, over a particular road, to warrant reliance on such method of proof. The matter has to be determined by a consideration of many facts.””
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.