Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 224 U.S. 194 - Interstate Commerce Commission v. Goodrich Transit Co.

Interstate Commerce Commission v. Goodrich Transit Co.’s Empirical Analysis

224 U.S. 194 · 1912

Citation profile

358
cited by 358 later decisions
82
cited 82 times by the Supreme Court
22
states following
June 2019
most recently cited

86 federal appellate · 40 district · 63 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 358 later decisions (82 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2019 · most notably Wickard v. Filburn (1942), United States v. Darby (1941)

86 federal appellate · 40 district · 63 state decisions — followed in 22 states

108019121920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedGoodrich Transit Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission

Relationships

Relies on M'Culloch v. State of Maryland · Southern Pacific Terminal Company v. Interstate Commerce Commission · Gibbons v. Ogden · Edwin Hale v. William Henkel · Texas Pacific Railway Company v. Abilene Cotton Oil Company

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

  1. “[T]he congress may not delegate its purely legislative power to a commission, but, having laid down the general rules of action under which a commission shall proceed, it may require, of that commission the application of such rules to particular situations and the investigation of facts, with a view to making orders in a particular matter within the rules laid down by the congress.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The object of requiring (business) accounts to be kept in a uniform way, and to be open to the inspection of the Commission is not to enable it to regulate the affairs of the corporations not within its jurisdiction, but to be informed concerning the business methods of the corporations Subject to the act, that it may properly regulate such matters as are really within its jurisdiction.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““ * * * If the Commission is to be informed of the business of the corporation, so far as its bookkeeping and reports are concerned, it must have full knowledge and full disclosures thereof, in order that it may ascertain whether forbidden practices and discriminations are concealed, even unintentionally, in certain accounts, and whether charges of expense are made against one part of a business which ought to be made against another.””
    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.