Pennsylvania Railroad Company v. International Coal Mining Company’s Empirical Analysis
230 U.S. 184 · 1913
Citation profile
324 federal appellate · 75 district · 139 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 783 later decisions (76 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2019 · most notably United States v. American Trucking Associations (1940), Yakus v. United States (1944)
324 federal appellate · 75 district · 139 state decisions — followed in 33 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedPennsylvania R. v. International Coal Mining Co. (from Third Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Texas Pacific Railway Company v. Abilene Cotton Oil Company · United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Ass'n · Armour Packing Company v. United States · New York New Haven Hartford Railroad 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 783 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““* * * But the English courts make a clear distinction between overcharge and damages, and the same is true under the commerce act. For if the plaintiff here had been required to pay more than the tariff rate, it could have recovered the excess, not as damages, but as overcharge * *”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“If ... the rates were unreasonable, the shipper was nevertheless bound to pay and the carrier to retain what had been paid, leaving, however, to the former, the right to apply to the Commission for reparation.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“For even if a difference in rates could be made between free and contract coal, none was made in the only way in which it could have been lawfully done. The published tariffs made no distinction between contract coal and free coal, but named one rate for all alike. That being true, only that single rate could be charged____ In view of this imperative obligation to charge, collect and retain the sum named in [that single] tariff, there was no call for the exercise of the rate-regulating discretion of the administrative body to decide whether the carrier could make a difference in rates between free and contract coal.”
3 later decisions 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.