Chicago Alton Railraod Company v. Nathaniel T Kirby’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 9 district · 129 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 158 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2011 · most notably Southern Railway Co. v. Prescott (1916), Schmidt v. Northern States Power Co. (2007)
5 federal appellate · 9 district · 129 state decisions — followed in 35 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 Texas Pacific Railway Company v. Abilene Cotton Oil Company · Armour Packing Company v. United States · New York New Haven Hartford Railroad Company v. Interstate Commerce Commission · Texas Pacific Railway Company v. Mugg Dryden · Merchants' Cotton-Press Storage Co v. Insurance Co of North America National Fire Ins 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 158 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““An advantage accorded by special agreement which affects the value of the service to the shipper and its cost to the carrier should be published in the tariffs, and for a breach of such a contract relief will be denied, because its allowance without such publication is a violation of the act. . . . The broad purpose of the Commerce Act was to compel the establishment of reasonable rates and their uniform application. That purpose would be defeated if sanction be given to a special contract by which any such advantage is given to a particular shipper as that contracted for by the defendant in error. . . . That the defendant in error did not see and did not know that the published rates and schedules made no provision for the service he contracted for,. is no defense. For the purposes of the present question he is presumed to have known. The rates were published and accessible, and, however difficult to understand, he must be taken to have contracted for an advantage not open to others.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It shall be unlawful for any person, persons of corporation to offer, grant, or give, or to solicit, accept, or receive any rebate, concession, or discrimination in respect of the transportation of any property in interstate or foreign commerce by any common carrier subject to said Act to Regulate Commerce and the acts amendatory thereto whereby any such' property shall by any device whatever be transported at a less rate than that named in the tariffs published and filed by such carrier, as is required by said Act to Regulate Commerce and the acts amendatory thereto, or whereby any other advantage is given or discrimination is practiced.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““That purpose would be defeated if sanction be given to a special contract by which any such advantage is given to a particular shipper as that contracted for by the defendant in error.””
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.