Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 257 U.S. 563 - Railroad Commission of Wisconsin v. Chicago B & Q R Co

Railroad Commission of Wisconsin v. Chicago B & Q R Co’s Empirical Analysis

1922

Citation profile

166
cited by 166 later decisions
5
cited 5 times by the Supreme Court
21
states following
June 2016
most recently cited

8 federal appellate · 24 district · 45 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 166 later decisions (5 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2016 · most notably Dayton-Goose Creek Railway Co. v. United States, Interstate Commerce Commission (1924), NORTH CAROLINA Et Al. v. UNITED STATES Et Al. (1945)

8 federal appellate · 24 district · 45 state decisions — followed in 21 states

3601922193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Caminetti v. United States · Mondou v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad · Simpson v. Shepard · Duplex Printing Press Co. v. Deering · Houston East West Texas Railway 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 166 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “only admissible to solve doubt and not to create it”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““It is manifest from this very condensed recital that the act made a new departure. Theretofore the control which Congress through the Interstate Commerce Commission exercised was primarily for the purpose of preventing injustice by unreasonable or discriminatory rates against persons and localities, and the only provisions of the law that inured to the benefit of the carriers were the requirement that the rates should be reasonable in the sense of furnishing an adequate compensation for the particular service rendered and the abolition of rebates. The new measure imposed an affirmative duty on the Interstate Commerce Commission to fix rates and to take other important steps to maintain an adequate railway service for the people of the United States. This is expressly declared in section 15a to be one of the purposes of the bill.””
    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.