Interstate Commerce Commission v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad’s Empirical Analysis
225 U.S. 326 · 1912
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 4 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 83 later decisions (18 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 1979 · most notably American Trucking Associations v. Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company National Automobile Transporters Association of Detroit Michigan (1967), Louisville Co v. United States (1931)
24 federal appellate · 4 district · 6 state decisions
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 New York New Haven Hartford Railroad Company v. Interstate Commerce Commission · Texas Ry Co v. Interstate Commerce Commission · Interstate Commerce Commission v. Illinois Central Railroad · Illinois Central Railroad Company v. Interstate Commerce Commission · Southern Pacific Company v. Interstate Commerce Commission
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 83 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“But such features do not affect the carriage, qualify or alter the essential service, which is to get an article from one place to another. The greater or less inducement to seek the service is not the service. Such competition, therefore, is as extraneous to the transportation as the instances in the cases cited.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“* * * It is admitted that the fact that a railroad is the shipper or consumer is not a circumstance or condition that affects the carriage, nor can the different uses to which the coal may be put, and it would seem necessarily that any other extraneous condition or circumstance could have no greater potency. * * *”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Chicago Great Western R. v. Postal Telegraph-Cable Co. · Royal Netherlands Steamship Company v. Federal Maritime Board (Now Federal Maritime Commission) and United States of America, Lykes Bros. Steamship Co., Inc., Intervenor. Lykes Bros. Steamship Co., Inc. v. Federal Maritime Board (Now Federal Maritime Commission) and United States of America, Houston Freight Forwarding Company, Inc. v. Federal Maritime Board (Now Federal Maritime Commission) and United States of America, Bartlett-Collins Company v. Federal Maritime Board (Now Federal Maritime Commission) and United States of America““The circumstances and conditions which, may so far be considered as distinguishing traffic so as to take from different transportation charges the vice of preference, have been described by this court. In Wight v. United States, 167 U. S. 512 , 518 [ 17 Sup. Ct. 822 , 42 L. Ed. 258 ], it is said: ‘It was the purpose of the section (2) to enforce equality between shippers, and it prohibits any rebate or any device by which two shippers shipping over the same line, the same distance, under the same circumstances of carriage, are compelled to pay different prices therefor.’ ””
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.