United States ex rel. Chicago, New York & Boston Refrigerator Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission’s Empirical Analysis
265 U.S. 292 · 1924
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2011 · most notably United States v. American Ry Express Co Southeastern Express Co (1924), Swarna v. Al-Awadi (2010)
22 federal appellate · 5 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
reviewedthe decision below (from District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Wells Fargo & Co. v. Taylor · Ellis v. Interstate Commerce Commission · United States ex rel. Chicago, New York & Boston Refrigerator Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““If the car company is a carrier by railroad, it would seem to follow that sleeping car companies and express companies are likewise included within the words. Evidently, however, congress did not think so, since § 209 of the act contains special provisions in respect of these companies, which would have been entirely unnecessary if they had been so included. The contention that the car company, if not a carrier by railroad, is a ‘system of transportation’ and hence within the words of the statutory definition, may be readily disposed of. The phrase forms part of the definition: ‘a carrier by railroad or partly by railroad and partly by water, whose railroad or system of transportation is under federal control,’ etc. It is plain that the words ‘whose railroad or system of transportation,’ etc., are not to be read independently, but as qualifying the language immediately preceding; and they are to be taken distributively as though the clause had read ‘a carrier by railroad, whose railroad is under federal control, or, a carrier partly by railroad and partly by water, whose system of transportation is under federal control.” (p. 297.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[B]ecause words used in one statute have a particular meaning they do not necessarily denote an identical meaning when used in another and different statute”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“not a carrier by railroad, or, indeed, a common carrier at all”
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.