Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 235 U.S. 537 - South Covington Cincinnati Street Railway Company v. City of Covington J B

South Covington Cincinnati Street Railway Company v. City of Covington J B’s Empirical Analysis

235 U.S. 537 · 1915

Citation profile

114
cited by 114 later decisions
6
cited 6 times by the Supreme Court
12
states following
July 2000
most recently cited

18 federal appellate · 17 district · 31 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 114 later decisions (6 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2000 · most notably Southern Pac Co v. State of Arizona Sullivan (1945), Morgan v. Commonwealth of Virginia (1946)

18 federal appellate · 17 district · 31 state decisions — followed in 12 states

2901915192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 Ex Parte: Edward T Young · Standard Oil Company of New Jersey v. United States · Mugler v. State of Kansas State of Kansas Tufts · Simpson v. Shepard · The Daniel Ball

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

  1. ““If Covington can regulate these matters, certainly Cincinnati can, and interstate business might be impeded by conflicting and varying regulations in this respect, with which it might be impossible to comply. On one side of the river one set of regulations might be enforced, and on the other side quite a different set, and both seeking to control a practically continuous movement of cars. As was said in Hall v. De Cuir, 95 U. S. 485 , 489 [ 24 L. Ed. 597 ], ‘commerce cannot flourish in the midst of such embarrassments.’ We need not stop to consider whether Congress hás undertaken to regulate such interstate transportation as this, for it is clearly within its power to do so, and absence of federal regulation does not give the power to the state to make-rules which so necessarily control the conduct of interstate commerce as do-those just considered.””
    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.