Baltimore Co v. Settle’s Empirical Analysis
260 U.S. 166 · 1922
Citation profile
122 federal appellate · 54 district · 97 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 384 later decisions (30 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2024 · most notably Washington v. W. C. Dawson & Co. (1924), Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co. (1932)
122 federal appellate · 54 district · 97 state decisions — followed in 20 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
reviewedBaltimore & O. S. W. R. R. v. Settle (from Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Southern Pacific Terminal Company v. Interstate Commerce Commission · Texas New Orleans Railroad Company v. Sabine Tram Company · Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Esteve Bros. & Co. · Railroad Commission of Ohio v. B a Worthington
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 384 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““And whether the interstate or the intrastate tariff is applicable depends upon the essential character of the movement. That the contract between shipper and carrier does not necessarily determine the character was settled by a series of eases in which the subject received much consideration. Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 219 U. S. 498 [ 31 S. Ct. 279 , 55 L. Ed. 310 ]; Ohio Railroad Commission v. Worthington, 225 U. S. 101 [ 32 S. Ct. 653 , 56 L. Ed. 1004 ]; Texas & New Orleans R. R. Co. v. Sabine Tram Co., 227 U. S. 111 [ 33 S. Ct. 229 , 57 L. Ed. 442 ]; Railroad Commission of Louisiana v. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co., 229 U. S. 336 [ 33 S. Ct. 837 , 57 L. Ed. 1215 ]. And in Baer Brothers Mercantile Co. v. Denver & Rio Grande R. R. Co., 233 U. S. 479 , 490 [ 34 S. Ct. 641 , 58 L. Ed. 1055 ], this court held that a carrier cannot, by separating the rate into its component parts, charging local rates and issuing local waybills, convert an interstate shipment into intrastate transportation, and thereby deprive a shipper of the benefit of an appropriate rate for a through interstate movement.””
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The mere fact that cars received on interstate movement are reshipped by the consignee, after a brief interval, to another point, does not, of course, establish an essential continuity of movement to the latter point. The reshipment, although immediate, may be an independent intrastate movement.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The movement had been divided by the shippers into two stages — instead of using through billing — because they. believed that by so doing they could secure transportation to Madisonville at less than the through interstate rate. Whether under the Act to Regulate Commerce [Comp. St. § 8563 et seq.} lower intermediate rates can be so used in combination, is the precise question for decision.””
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.