United States v. Louisiana & Pacific Railway Company Atchison Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
1 district · 20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2011 · most notably Woollcott v. . Shubert (1916), Manufacturers' Ry Co v. United States
1 district · 20 state decisions — followed in 12 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 Coe v. Town of Errol · Procter Gamble Company v. United States of America · United States of America v. Union Stock Yard & Transit Company of Chicago No 621 Chicago Junction Railway Company · United States Ex Pel Attorney General of the United States v. Delaware & Hudson Company Same · Hairston v. Danville & Western 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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is insisted that these roads are not carriers because the most of their traffic is in their own logs and lumber, and that only a small part of the traffic carried is the property of others. But this conclusion loses sight of the principle that the extent to which a railroad is in fact used does not determine the fact whether it is or is not a common carrier. It is the right of the public to use the road’s facilities and to demand service of it rather than the extent of its business, which is the real criterion determinative of its character. This principle has been frequently recognized in the decisions of the courts.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Furthermore, these roads are common carriers when tried by the test of organization for that purpose under competent legislation of the State. They are so treated by the public authorities of the State, who insist in this ease that they are such, and submit in oral discussion and printed briefs cogent arguments to justify-that conclusion. They are engaged in carrying for hire the goods of those who see fit to employ them. They are authorized to exercise the right of eminent domain by the State of their incorporation. They were treated and dealt with as common carriers by connecting systems of other carriers, a circumstance to be noticed in determining their true character. United States v. Union Stock Yard & Transit Co., 226 U. S. 286 . They are engaged in transportation as that term is defined in the commerce act and described in decisions of this court.””
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.