Terminal Taxicab Co. v. Kutz’s Empirical Analysis
241 U.S. 252 · 1916
Citation profile
60 federal appellate · 21 district · 167 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 340 later decisions (28 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2020 · most notably Block v. Hirsh (1921), Federal Trade Commission v. American Tobacco Co. (1924)
60 federal appellate · 21 district · 167 state decisions — followed in 32 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 District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Yick Wo v. Hopkins · Munn v. Illinois · German Alliance Insurance Company v. Ike Lewis · Interstate Commerce Commission v. Goodrich Transit Co.
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 340 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[n]o carrier serves all the public. His customers are limited by place, requirements, ability to pay and other facts.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The rest of the plaintiff’s business, amounting to four-tenths, consists mainly in furnishing automobiles from a central garage on orders, -generally by telephone. It asserts the right to refuse the service and no doubt would do so if the pay was uncertain, but it advertises extensively and, we must assume, generally accepts any seemingly solvent customer. Still, the bargains are individual, and however much they may tend towards uniformity in price probably have not quite the mechanical fixity of charges that attends the use of taxicabs from the Station and hotels. There is no contract with a third person to serve the public generally. The question whether as to this part of its business it is an agency for public use within the meaning of the statute is more difficult. * * * Although I have not been able to free my mind from doubt the court is of opinion that this part of the business is not to be regarded as a public utility.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It does business . . . and the important thing is what it does, not what its charter says.”
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.