Lehigh Coal & Navigation Co. v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
250 U.S. 556 · 1919
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 1982
11 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
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
reviewedCentral R. v. United States (from Third Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Armour Packing Company v. United States · Mitchell Coal Coke Company v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company · New York Central & Hudson River Railroad v. United States · Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co. v. United States
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The foundation of the dispute is the tenth covenant of a railroad lease, or contract, between the Lehigh Ooal & Navigation Co. as lessor (hereinafter called the Company), and the Central Railroad of New Jersey as lessee (hereinafter called the Central Railroad). In order to understand the situation,, a preliminary statement in some detail is necessary: The Company, which Is a miner and shipper of anthracite coal, was indicted, convicted, and fined, in the District Court for the District of New Jersey for accepting rebates and concessions from the Central Railroad in violation of the Elkins Act as amended in 1906. 34 Stat. 584 . Each count of the indictment charged a separate offense substantially as follows: As a part of its interstate business, the Central Railroad carries anthracite coal in carload lots. Being subject to the Acts to Regulate Commerce, it filed tariffs and schedules with the Com-*, mission, showing its rates and charges for such carriage from the Pennsylvania field to points in New Jersey. During the period covered by the indictment — 1912, 1913, 1914, and part of 1915 — these tariffs were in force, and under them tire Company shipped the carload described in the count from Nesquehoning colliery in Pennsylvania to a specified point in New Jersey. The rate named in the tariff thus became due and payable, but afterward the Company unlawfully and knowingly accepted a portion of such rate from the Central Railroad, so that the coal was carried at less than the ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““In the criminal prosecution of a shipper for knowingly accepting transportation at less than the (Inly established rate by receiving an allowance that was referred to in the tariff hut was not specified in figures therein, has the defendant a right to offer evidence that the allowance was received under fixe honest belief that it was lawfully established by the tariff, and under the honest belief that in receiving it he was not disregarding what he believed to be the provisions of the tariff bnt was complying therewith?””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“was induced by practice and the opinion of those in authority that the act was complied with,”
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.