United States v. Los Angeles & Salt Lake Railroad’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

157 federal appellate · 64 district · 47 state decisions

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 486 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The so-called order here complained of is one which does not command the carrier to do, or to refrain from doing, anything; which does not grant or withhold any authority, • privilege or license; which does not extend or abridge any power or facility; which does not subject the carrier to any liability, civil or criminal; which does not change the carrier’s existing or future status or condition; which does not determine any right or obligation. This so-called order is merely the formal record of conclusions reached after a study of data collected in the course of extensive research conducted by the Commission, through its employees. It is the exercise solely of the function of investigation. Compare Smith v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 245 U.S. 33 , 38 S.Ct. 30 , 62 L.Ed. 135 . Moreover, the investigation made was not a step in a pending proceeding in which an order of the character of those held to be judicially reviewable could be entered later. It was merely preparation for possible action in some proceeding which may be instituted in the future-preparation deemed by Congress necessary to enable the Commission to perform adequately its duties, if and when occasion for action shall arise. The final report may, of course, become a basis for action by the Commission, as it may become a basis for action by Congress or by the Legislature or an administrative board of a state. But so may any report of an investigation, whether made by a committee of Congress or by the Comm”

   13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Shannahan v. United States · National Van Lines, Inc. v. United States

2. “The final report on value, like the tentative report, is called an order. But there are many orders of the Commission which are not judicially reviewable under the provision now incorporated in the Urgent Deficiencies Act. See Proctor & Gamble Co. v. United States, 225 U.S. 282 , 32 S.Ct. 761 , 56 L.Ed. 1091 ; Hooker v. Knapp, 225 U.S. 302 , 32 S.Ct. 769 , 56 L.Ed. 1099 ; Lehigh Valley R.R. Co. v. United States, 243 U.S. 412 , 37 S.Ct. 397 , 61 L.Ed. 819 ; United States v. Illinois Central R.R. Co., 244 U.S. 82 , 89, 37 S.Ct. 584 , 586, 61 L.Ed. 1007 ; Delaware & Hudson Co. v. United States, 266 U.S. 438 , 45 S.Ct. 153 , 69 L.Ed. 369 . 3”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Federal Power Commission v. Metropolitan Edison Co. · Pacific Towboat & Salvage Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission

3. “The investigation was undertaken in aid of the legislative purpose of regulation. In conducting the investigation, and in making the report, the Commission performed a service specifically delegated and prescribed by Congress. Its conclusions, if erroneous in law, may be disregarded. But neither its utterances, nor its processes of reasoning, as distinguished from its acts, are a subject for injunction.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath