Chicago Rock Island Pacific Railway Company v. Hardwick Farmers Elevator Company’s Empirical Analysis
226 U.S. 426 · 1913
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 14 district · 83 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 181 later decisions (11 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 1999 · most notably Hill v. State of Florida Watson (1945), Pennsylvania Railroad Company v. Puritan Coal Mining Company (1915)
20 federal appellate · 14 district · 83 state decisions — followed in 24 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 Bowman v. Chicago N W Ry Co · Interstate Commerce Commission v. Illinois Central Railroad · Wabash St Ry Co v. State of Illinois · Missouri Ry Co v. Haber · Rhodes v. State of Iowa
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 181 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““As legislation concerning the delivery of cars for the carriage of interstate traffic was clearly a matter of interstate commerce regulation, even if such subject was embraced within that class of powers concerning which the State had a right to exert its authority in the absence of legislation by congress, it must follow in consequence of the action of congress, to which we have referred, that the power of the State over the subject-matter ceased to exist from the moment that congress exerted its paramount and all embracing authority over the subject.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““And all services in connection with the receipt, delivery, elevation and. transfer in transit, ventilation, refrigeration or icing, storage and handling of property transported.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The purpose of Congress to specifically impose a duty upon a carrier in respect to the furnishing of cars for interstate traffic is of course by these provisions clearly declared. * * * Not only is there then a specific duty imposed to furnish cars for interstate traffic upon reasonable request therefor, but other applicable sections of the act to regulate commerce give remedies for the violation of that duty.””
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.