United States of America v. Union Stock Yard & Transit Company of Chicago No 621 Chicago Junction Railway Company’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

77 federal appellate · 27 district · 48 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 256 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Its [the Stock Yards Company’s] operations . . . include the maintenance and use of railroad tracks and locomotives, the employment of a corps of operatives in that connection, and the carriage for hire over its tracks of all live stock destined to or from the sheds or pens, which, in effect, are the depot of the railroad companies for the delivery and receipt of shipments of live stock at South Omaha. The carriage of these shipments from the transfer track to the sheds or pens and vice versa is no less a part of their transit between their points of origin and destination than is their carriage over any other portion of the route. True, there is a temporary stoppage of the loaded cars at the transfer track, but that is merely incidental and-does not break the continuity of the transit any more than does -the usual transfer of such cars from one carrier to another at a connecting point. And it is of little significance that the Stock Yards Company does not hold itself out as ready or willing generally to carry live stock for the public, for all the railroad companies at South Omaha do so hold themselves out, and it stands ready and willing to conduct, and actually does conduct, for hire a part of the transportation of every live-stock shipment which they accept for carriage to or from that point, including such shipments as are interstate.” '”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State and R. R. W. H. Comm. v. R.I. M. T. Co. · Waldum v. Lake Superior Terminal & Transfer Railway Co.

2. ““That the service is performed wholly in one state can make no difference if it is a part of interstate carriage.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Chicago, K. & S. Ry. Co. v. Kindlesparker · United Transp. Union v. LONG ISLAND RR, ETC.

3. ““In other words, this plant in effect may pay for the services of the Stockyard Company up to the sum of .?50,000, with the bonus given to the Pfaelzers for the location of their plant in juxtaposition to the stockyards. * * * Any other company with which it has made no contract would be compelled to pay the full charge for the services rendered, without any rebate or concession. Another company might have a contract for a larger or smaller bonus, and thereby receive different treatment. Certainly as to the company which receives no such bonus there has been an undue advantage given to and an unlawful discrimination practiced in favor of I'faelzer & Sons. * * * Tt is the object of the Interstate Commerce Law and the Elkins Act to prevent favoritism by any means or device whatsoever, and to prohibit practices which run counter to the purpose of the act to place all shippers upon equal terms.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Cleveland, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Hirsch