Colorado v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
271 U.S. 153 · 1926
Citation profile
180 federal appellate · 103 district · 76 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 704 later decisions (97 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2017 · most notably Alabama Public Service Commission v. Southern Railway Co. (1951), Rochester Telephone Corporation v. United States (1939)
180 federal appellate · 103 district · 76 state decisions — followed in 18 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.
Relationships
Relies on Simpson v. Shepard · Houston East West Texas Railway Company v. United States · Stafford v. Wallace · Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Mottley · Interstate Commerce Commission v. Union Pacific Railroad
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 704 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * The making of this determination involves an exercise of judgment upon the facts of the particular case. The authority to find the facts and to exercise thereon the judgment whether abandonment is consistent with public convenience and necessity, Congress conferred upon the Commission.””
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“consistent with public necessity and convenience.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The benefit to [the railroad] of the abandonment [should be balanced] against the inconvenience and loss to [the public]. Conversely, the benefits to particular communities and commerce of continued operation must be weighed against the burden thereby imposed upon other commerce.... Whatever the precise nature of these conflicting needs, the determination is made upon a balancing of the respective interests.... In that balancing, the fact of demonstrated prejudice to interstate commerce and the absence of earnings adequate to afford reasonable compensation are, of course, relevant and may often be controlling. But the [A]ct does not make issuance of the [abandonment] certificate dependent upon a specific finding to that effect.””
5 later decisions 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.