United States of America v. Union Pacific Railroad Company’s Empirical Analysis
226 U.S. 61 · 1912
Citation profile
47 federal appellate · 49 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 239 later decisions (75 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2001 · most notably Connally v. General Construction Co. (1926), United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. (1940)
47 federal appellate · 49 district · 9 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 Standard Oil Company of New Jersey v. United States · Swift Company v. United States · United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Ass'n · Addyston Pipe Steel Company v. United States · Northern Securities Company v. United States
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 239 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““We take it, therefore, that it may be regarded as settled, applying the statute as construed in the decisions of this court, that a combination which places railroads engaged in interstate commerce in such relation as to create a single dominating control in one corporation, whereby natural and existing competition in interstate commerce is unduly restricted or suppressed, is within the condemnation of the act. While the law may not be able to enforce competition, it can reach combinations which render competition impracticable.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ It [the Sherman Act] broadly condemns all combinations and conspiracies which restrain the free and natural flow of trade in the channels of interstate commerce.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Applying the rule of reason to the construction of the statute, it was held in the Standard Oil Case that as the words 'restraint of trade’ at common law and in the law of this country at the time of the adoption of the Antitrust Act only embraced acts or contracts or agreements or combinations which operated to the prejudice of the public interests- by unduly restricting competition or unduly obstructing the due course of trade or which, either because of their inherent nature or effect- or because of the evident purpose of the acts, etc., injuriously restrained trade, that the words as used in the statute were designed to have and did have but a like significance.”
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.