Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. Dettlebach’s Empirical Analysis
239 U.S. 588 · 1916
Citation profile
44 federal appellate · 8 district · 67 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 167 later decisions (8 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2010 · most notably Georgia Florida Alabama Railway Company v. Blish Milling Company (1916), Southern Railway Co. v. Prescott (1916)
44 federal appellate · 8 district · 67 state decisions — followed in 21 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 Adams Express Co. v. Croninger · Kansas City Southern Railway Co. v. Carl · Missouri Kansas Texas Railway Company v. Harriman Brothers · Boston & Maine Railroad v. Hooker · Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Robinson
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 167 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * it is evident that Congress recognized that the duty of carriers to the public included the performance of a variety of services that, according to the theory of the common law, were separable from the carrier’s service as carrier, and, in order to prevent overcharges and discriminations from being made under the pretext of performing such additional services, it enacted that, so far as interstate carriers by rail were concerned, the entire body of such services should be included together under the single term ‘transportation,’ and subjected to the provisions of the act respecting reasonable rates and the like.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Section 1 of the Interstate Commerce Act .(Comp. St. § 8563) provides that ‘transportation’ shall include ‘all services in connection with the receipt, delivery, elevation, and transfer in transit, ventilation, refrigeration or icing, storage, and handling of property transported.’ Reasonable rates to be approved by the Interstate Commerce Commission are required for all these services, including ‘handling and storage.’ By section 6 (Comp. St. § 8569) the carrier is required to file schedules which shall state separately all terminal charges, storage charges, icing charges, and all other charges which the Commission may require. The statute could hardly more clearly express the intention to put terminal and storage charges on the same basis as freight, and to make them as much a part of the contract of transportation as the freight.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““We recognize the cogency of the reasoning from the standpoint of the common-law responsibility of a railway company as carrier and as warehouseman. But we have to deal with the effect of an express contract', made for the purpose of interstate transportation, and this must be determined in the light of the act of Congress regulating the matter. The question is federal in its nature.””
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.