Union Lime Company v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Company’s Empirical Analysis
233 U.S. 211 · 1914
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 2 district · 36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 94 later decisions (13 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2000 · most notably Chas. Wolff Packing Co. v. Court of Industrial Relations (1923), Heim v. McCall (1915)
11 federal appellate · 2 district · 36 state decisions — followed in 14 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 John Den James Murray and John Kayser v. The Hoboken Land and Improvement Company John Den James B Murray et al. · Davidson v. New Orleans · Fallbrook Irrigation District v. Bradley · Eubank v. City of Richmond · Loan Association v. Topeka
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 94 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * A spur may, at the outset, lead only to a single industry or establishment; it may be constructed to furnish an outlet for the products of a particular plant; its costs may be defrayed by those in special need of its service at the time. But none the less, by virtue of the conditions under which it is provided, the spur may constitute at all times a part of the transportation facilities of the carrier which are operated under the obligations of public service, and are subject to the regulation of public authority. As was said by this court in Hairston v. Danville W. R. Co., 208 U.S. 598 , 608, 28 S.Ct. 331 , 52 L.Ed. 637, 641 , 13 Ann.Cas. 1008: 'The uses for which the track was desired are not the less public because the motive which dictated its location over this particular land was to reach a private industry, or because the proprietors of that industry contributed in any way to the cost.' There is a clear distinction between spurs which are owned and operated by a common carrier as a part of its system and under its public obligation and merely private sidings. * * *”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““While common earners may not be compelled to make unreasonable outlays (Missouri Pacific Rwy. Co. v. Nebraska, 217 U. S. 196 ), it is competent for the State, acting within the sphere of its jurisdiction, to provide for an extension of their - transportation facilities, under reasonable conditions, so as to meet the demands of trade; and it may impress upon these extensions of the carriers' lines, thus furnished under the direction or authority of 'the State, a public character regardless of the number served at the beginning.. The branch or spur comes into existence as a public utility and as such is always available as' localities change and communities grow.””
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.