Phillips Company v. Grand Trunk Western Railway Company’s Empirical Analysis
236 U.S. 662 · 1915
Citation profile
129 federal appellate · 42 district · 90 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 446 later decisions (34 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2015 · most notably United States v. Western Pacific Railroad (1956), Brooklyn Sav Bank v. O'Neil Dize (1945)
129 federal appellate · 42 district · 90 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Texas Pacific Railway Company v. Abilene Cotton Oil Company · Finn v. United States · Illinois Central Railroad Company v. Interstate Commerce Commission · Robinson v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad
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 446 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Under such a statute [referring to Interstate Commerce Act] the lapse of time, not only bars the remedy, but destroys the liability (Finn v. United States, 123 U. S. 227 , 232 [ 8 S. Ct. 82 , 31 L. Ed. 128 ]), whether complaint is filed with the Commission or suit is brought in a court of competent jurisdiction. This will more distinctly appear by considering the requirements of uniformity which, in this as in so many other instances must be borne in. mind in construing the Commerce Act. * •* * To have one period of limitation where the complaint is filed before the Commission and the’ varying periods of limitation of the different states, where a suit was brought in a court of competent jurisdiction, or to permit a railroad company to plead the statute of limitations as against some and to waive it as against others would be to prefer some and discriminate against others in violation of the terms of the Commerce Act which forbids all devices by which such results may be accomplished. * * * The Railroad Company, therefore, was bound to claim the. benefit of the statute here and could do so here by general demurrer; for, when it appeared that the complaint had not been filed within the time required by the statute, it was evident, as matter, of law, that the plaintiff had no cause of action.””
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““(3) All actions at law by carriers subject to this Act for recovery of their charges, or any part thereof, shall be begun within three years from the time the cause of action accrues, and not after. All complaints for the recovery of damages shall be filed with the Commission within two years from the time the cause of action accrues, and not after, unless the carrier, after the expiration of such two years or within ninety days before such expiration, begins an action for recovery of charges in respect of the same service, in which case such period of two years shall be extended to and including ninety days from the time such action by the carrier is begun.” Transportation Act of 1920, ch. 91, § 424, 41 Stat. 456 , 491-92.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Under such a statute the lapse of time not only bars the remedy, but destroys the liability.””
4 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.