State of Washington Ex Rel Oregon Railroad Navigation Company v. H a Fairchild C S’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

20 federal appellate · 33 district · 121 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 304 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In weighing the public convenience on the one hand, and the expense to the railroad of the maintenance of the service, on the other, to determine the prevailing balance, the Commission should consider the following factors: the financial condition of the entire railroad system, the financial loss, if any, sustained in the maintenance of the agency, the fact of substitute services providing the same essential, although less convenient, service, the volume of business to be affected and the saving in time and expense to the shipper, the character and population of the territory served, and the proximity to other agency stations. The crucial point, however, is that it is unreasonable to require the maintenance of an agency station where the cost of the service is out of proportion to the revenue derived from the portion of the public benefited thereby. Finally, the maintaining of an uneconomic service resulting m an economic waste cannot be justified or excused by a showing that the service has been in the convenience and necessity of some individual. The convenience and necessity required are those of the public and not of an individual or individuals.” (Citations omitted.)”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Delaware, L. & W. R. v. Van Santvoord · Hines v. Clarendon Levee Dist.

2. ““Having been given full opportunity to be heard on the issues made by the complaint and answer, and as to' the reasonableness of the proposed order, and having adopted the statutory method of review, this company cannot complain. It had the right to offer all competent testimony before the commission, which, in view of the form of proceeding’s authorized by the statute, acted in this respect somewhat like a master an chancery who has been required to take testimony and report his findings of fact and conclusions of law. The court would test its correctness by the evidence submitted to the master. Nor would there be any impairment of the right to a judicial review, because additional testimony could not be submitted to the chancellor.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Puget Sound Electric Ry. v. Lee · Turner Creamery Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. P. Ry. Co.

3. ““We think this a proper occasion to express disapproval of such a method of procedure on the part of the railroad companies as should lead them to withhold the larger part of their-evidence from, the commission, and first adduce it in the circuit court. The ■commission is an administrative board, ‘and the courts are only to be .resorted to when the commission prefers to enforce -the provisions of the statute by a direct proceeding in the court, or when the orders of the .commission have -been disregarded. The theory of the act evidently is, as shown by the provision that the findings of the commission shall be regarded as- prima facie evidence, that the facts of the case are to be disclosed before the commission.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Puget Sound Electric Ry. v. Lee · Turner Creamery Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. P. Ry. Co.