Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 230 U.S. 474 - John Knott v. Chicago Burlington & Quincy R R Company

John Knott v. Chicago Burlington & Quincy R R Company’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

28
cited by 28 later decisions
9
states following
December 1969
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 5 district · 17 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently December 1969 · most notably Public Service Commission v. City of Indianapolis (1956), Northern Pacific Railway Company v. State of North Dakota

2 federal appellate · 5 district · 17 state decisions

130191019201930194019501960decided

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 Simpson v. Shepard · McCully v. Chicago, Burlington, & Quincy Railway Co.

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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““The contention of the appellants that the court erred in permitting the filing of the amended and supplemental bills is without merit. Although the commodity rate act of 1907 repealed that of 1905, it saved the penalties and liabilities incurred’ under the repealed statute. Both the-original and supplemental bills proceeded upon the broad ground that, the returns of the companies from their intrastate business, prior to' the act of 1905, were unreasonably low, and that any reduction in rates would only diminish the income, already inadequate. The additional legislation pending the suits, and the substitution of slightly higher rates on certain commodities embraced in the earlier act, did not alter the essential features of the controversy. There was identity of parties - and subject-matter, although nominally different acts were involved. To have required original bills would have involved double litigation, double costs, and great delay. The ends of justice were advanced by allowing the amended and supplemental bills, and we are not inclined to interfere with the reasonable discretion of the trial judge in a matter of practice which in no way violated any of the substantial rights of the appellants.””
    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.