United States v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad’s Empirical Analysis
238 U.S. 516 · 1915
Citation profile
60 federal appellate · 20 district · 42 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 192 later decisions (32 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2001 · most notably New Colonial Ice Co. v. Helvering (1934), United States v. Aluminum Co. of America (1945)
60 federal appellate · 20 district · 42 state decisions — followed in 13 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 Standard Oil Company of New Jersey v. United States · Northern Securities Company v. United States · United States of America v. American Tobacco Co. · United States ex rel. Attorney General of the United States v. Delaware & Hudson Co. · New York New Haven Hartford Railroad Company v. Interstate Commerce Commission
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 192 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““But the decisions construing the statute recognize that one corporation can be an agent for another corporation, and that by means of stock ownership one of such companies may be converted into a mere agent or instrumentality of the other. United States v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 220 U. S. 257, 273 , 55 L. Ed. 458, 463 , 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 387. And this use of one by the other — or this power of one over the other — does not depend upon control by virtue of the fact that stock therein is held by the railroad company or by its shareholders. For dominance of the coal company may be secured by a carrier. (New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 200 U. S. 363 , 50 L. Ed. 515 , 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 272), not only by an express contract of agency, but by any contract which, in its practical operation, gives' to the railroad company a control or an ‘interest, direct or indirect,’ in the coal sold,' at the mouth of the mines.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]f [a] contract [is] in restraint of trade it [is] void because in violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Law.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“mined, or produced by it, or under its authority,”
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.