Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Aircoach Transport Ass'n’s Empirical Analysis
253 F.2d 877 · 1958
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently September 2018 · most notably Union Carbide and Carbon Corporation and Vanadium Corporation of America v. Frank Nisley, Jr., Union Carbide and Carbon Corporation and Vanadium Corporation of America v. John F. Wade, Union Carbide and Carbon Corporation and Vanadium Corporation of America v. Howard Balsley, Union Carbide and Carbon Corporation and Vanadium Corporation of America v. Unnamed (1962), Democratic Central Committee of The District of Columbia v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission (1973)
19 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 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.
Relationships
Relies on United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. · Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp. · United States v. Western Pacific Railroad · American Tobacco Co. v. United States · Swift Company 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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Even though it should be found in the end that the practices as such have been validly immunized by section 5a approved agreements, nevertheless, if they are part of an effort by Railroads in combination of conspiracy to eliminate the competition of Aircoach, rather than used merely to meet that competition, the practices would be removed from the protection of section 5a(9).””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ * * * Furthermore, upon the basis of extensive testimony in committee hearings on section 5a bearing on its possible application to section 22 ‘rate adjustment’ or reduced rates for war materials, the House and Senate Committee Reports pointed out that the evidence was convincing that the joint organizations maintained by the carriers were not only necessary to enable them to meet the commercial requirements of the nation but also were indispensable to the requirements of national defense.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Nevertheless, the questions are appropriate for Commission consideration, even though, as we believe, exclusive primary jurisdiction over either of them does not reside in the Commission by reason of section 5a (7) [49 U.S.C.A. 5b(7)].””
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.