Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 250 U.S. 135 - Northern Pac Ry Co v. State of North Dakota Langer

Northern Pac Ry Co v. State of North Dakota Langer’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

104
cited by 104 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
31
states following
September 2015
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 7 district · 78 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 104 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2015 · most notably Gulf Refining Co. v. United States (1925), Miller v. Mun. Court of L. A. (1943)

5 federal appellate · 7 district · 78 state decisions — followed in 31 states

73019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Selective Draft Law Cases · Ex Parte Milligan · State of Minnesota v. Ethan Allen Hitchcock · Legal Tender Cases Knox v. Lee Parker · Belknap v. Schild

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

  1. ““The President, • in time of war is empowered, through the Secretary of War, to take possession and assume control of any system or systems of transportation, or any part thereof, and to utilize the same, to the exclusion as far as may be necessary of all other traffic thereon, for the transfer or transportation of troops, war material and equipment, or for such other purposes connected with the emergency as may be needful or desirable. * * *””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““No elaboration could make clearer than do the act of congress of 1916, the proclamation of the President exerting the powers given, and the act of 1918, dealing with the situation created by the exercise of such authority, that no divided but a complete possession and control were given the United States for all purposes as to the railroads in question. But if it be conceded that, despite the absolute clarity of the provisions concerning the control given the United States, and the all-embracing scope of that control, there is room for some doubt, the consideration of the general context completely dispels hesitancy. How can any other conclusion be reached if consideration be given the comprehensive provisions concerning the administration by the United States of the property which it was authorized to take, the financial obligations under which it came, and all the other duties and exactions which the act imposed, contemplating one control, one administration, one power for the accomplishment of the one purpose, the complete possession by governmental authority to replace for the period provided the private ownership theretofore existing?””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““That during the period of Federal control, whenever in his opinion the public interest requires, the President may initiate rates, fares, charges, classifications, regulations, and practices by filing the same with the Interstate Commerce Commission, which said rates, fares, charges, classifications, regulations, and practices shall not be suspended by the Commission pending final determination.””
    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.