Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Robinson’s Empirical Analysis
233 U.S. 173 · 1914
Citation profile
41 federal appellate · 19 district · 134 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 252 later decisions (12 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 1997 · most notably Keogh v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co. (1922), Fairmount Glass Works v. Cub Fork Coal Co. (1933)
41 federal appellate · 19 district · 134 state decisions — followed in 29 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 Texas Pacific Railway Company v. Abilene Cotton Oil Company · Adams Express Co. v. Croninger · William Parsons v. Bedford Breedlove · Kansas City Southern Railway Co. v. Carl · Missouri Kansas Texas Railway Company v. Harriman Brothers
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 252 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““To give to the oral agreement upon which the suit was brought, the prevailing effect allowed in this case by the charge in the trial court, affirmed by the judgment of the Supreme Court of the state, would be to allow a special contract to have binding force and effect though made in violation of the filed schedules which were to be equally observed by the shipper and carrier. If oral agreements of this character can be sustained'then the door is open to all manner of special contracts, departing from the schedules and rates filed with the Commission.””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The Supreme Court of the state in this case affirmed the instruction of the trial court upon which the case was given to the jury and held that the oral contract was binding, unless it was affirmatively shown that the written agreement, based upon the filed schedules, was brought to the knowledge of the shipper and its terms assented to by him. This ruling ignored the terms of shipment set forth in the schedules and permitted a recovery upon the contract made in violation thereof in a case where there was no proof that there was an attempt to violate the published rates by a fraudulent agreement showing rebating or false billing of the property, and no circumstances which would take the case out of the rulings heretofore made by this court as to the binding effect of such filed schedules and the duty of the shipper to take notice of the terms of such rates and the obligation to be bound thereby, in the absence of the exceptional circumstances to which we have referred.””
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.