Pennsylvania Railroad Company v. Puritan Coal Mining Company’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

118 federal appellate · 44 district · 150 state decisions

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

1. ““In a suit where the rule of practice itself is attacked as unfair or discriminatory, a question is raised which calls for the exercise of the judgment and discretion of the administrative power which has been vested by Congress in the Commission. * * * But if the carrier’s rule, fair on its face, has been unequally applied * * * there is no administrative question involved, the courts being called on to decide a mere question of fact as to whether the carrier has violated the rule to plaintiffs damage.””

   16 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Chicago & North Western Transportation Co. v. Kalo Brick & Tile Co. · Danna v. Air France

2. “* * * nothing in this chapter [act] contained shall in any way abridge or alter the remedies now existing at common law or by statute, but the provisions of this chapter are in addition to such remedies; * * *.”

   16 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Nader v. Allegheny Airlines, Inc. · Chicago & North Western Transportation Co. v. Kalo Brick & Tile Co.

3. ““The evidence establishes that from January 1 to June 30, 1947, complainant received practically all of the cars for which specific written car orders were placed; that thereafter in the complaint period more cars were furnished than were requested by written orders, though some delays were experienced; that complainant desired, required, and attempted to secure additional cars from defendant; that defendant and its employees made reasonable, and sometimes successful, efforts to furnish additional cars to complainant; that by reason of its inability to secure cars at all times when needed complainant was unable to fill some orders placed with it; that during 1947 defendant suffered a daily shortage of 583 freight cars; that such shortage was a general one for which no direct responsibility can be placed upon defendant; and that it is not shown that defendant unduly favored shippers other than complainant. “Complainant alleges violations of section 1(4), section 1(11) and section 3(1) of the Interstate Commerce Act. Under those sections defendant is required, in part, to provide and furnish transportation upon reasonable request; to furnish safe and adequate car service and to establish, observe, and enforce just and reasonable rules, regulations, and practices with respect to car service; and not to make, give, or cause any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, company, locality, or territory. The right of a shipper to ears, however, is not a”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Martin Bros. Box Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission · Pletcher v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.