Assigned Car Cases United States v. Berwind-White Coal Mining Co Same’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

42 federal appellate · 48 district · 25 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 277 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “it is not a condition of [the] validity [of such an exemption] that there be adduced evidence of its appropriateness in respect to every railroad to which it will be applicable.”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Ray v. Parker · Brae Corporation v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Consolidated Rail Corporation, E.F. Hutton Credit Corporation, Seattle & North Coast Railroad Company, Intervenors. Brae Corporation v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Railroad Company, Consolidated Rail Corporation, American Short Line Railroad Association, Southern Pacific Transportation Company, Common Carrier Conference-Irregular Route of American Trucking Associations, Inc., Angelina and Neches River Railroad, E.F. Hutton Credit Corporation, Weyerhaeuser Company, Intervenors. Brae Corporation v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Railroad Company, American Short Line Railroad Association, Freight Users Association of Long Island, Inc., Consolidated Rail Corporation, Southern Pacific Transportation Company, Angelina and Neches River Railroad, E.F. Hutton Credit Corporation, Weyerhaeuser Company, Intervenors. Brae Corporation v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Consolidated Rail Corporation, Freight Users Association of Long Island, Inc., Southern Pacific Transportation Company, E.F. Hutton Credit Corporation, Intervenors. American Paper Institute, Inc. v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Brown Transport Corporation, Consolidated Rail Corporation, Freight Users Association of Long Island, Inc., Southern Pacific Transportation Company, Common Carrier Conference-Irregular Route of American Trucking Associations, Inc., Angelina and Neches River Railroad, Brick Association of North Carolina, American Trucking Associations, Inc., National Grain and Feed Association, American Newspaper Publishers Association, Canadian Pulp and Paper Association, Intervenors. International Paper Company v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Consolidated Rail Corporation, Southern Pacific Transportation Company, Common Carrier Conference-Irregular Route of American Trucking Associations, Inc., Brick Association of North Carolina, Intervenors. The National Industrial Transportation League v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Consolidated Rail Corporation, Southern Traffic League, Inc., Southern Pacific Transportation Company, Eastern Industrial Traffic League, Inc., Brick Association of North Carolina, Volkswagen of America, Inc., Intervenors. Itel Corporation, Rail Division v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Consolidated Rail Corporation, East Camden & Highland Railroad Company, Funding Systems Railcar, Inc., Southwest Forest Industries, Inc., Valdosta Southern Railroad Company, Apalachicola Northern Railroad Co., Sabine River & Northern Railroad Company, Marinette, Tomahawk & Western Railroad Co., Little Rock & Western Railway Corp., Southern Pacific Transportation Company, Intervenors. Ford Motor Company v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Canadian Pulp and Paper Association, Brick Association of North Carolina, Southern Pacific Transportation Company, Consolidated Rail Corporation, Intervenors. Continental Forest Industries, Inc. v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Canadian Pulp and Paper Association, Brick Association of North Carolina, Southern Pacific Transportation Company, Consolidated Rail Corporation, Intervenors. Sysco Corporation v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Brick Association of North Carolina, Southern Pacific Transportation Company, Consolidated Rail Corporation, Intervenors. Patrick W. Simmons v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Southern Pacific Transportation Company, Consolidated Rail Corporation, Intervenors. The Aluminum Association, Inc. v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Canadian Pulp and Paper Association, Brick Association of North Carolina, Burlington Northern Railroad Company, Southern Pacific Transportation Company, Consolidated Rail Corporation, Intervenors. The Bangor and Aroostook Railroad Company, Delaware and Hudson Railway Company and Maine Central Railroad Company v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Consolidated Rail Corporation, Southern Pacific Transportation Company, Intervenors. Canadian National Railway Company and Canadian Pacific Limited v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Consolidated Rail Corporation, Southern Pacific Transportation Company, Intervenors. National Railway Utilization Corporation, Pickens Railroad Co., Peninsula Terminal Co., the Mississippian Railway, Inc., Graham County Railroad, Inc., Atlantic & Western Railway Co. v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Consolidated Rail Corporation, Intervenors. Central Vermont Railway, Inc., Detroit, Toledo and Ironton Railroad Company and Grand Trunk Western Railroad Co. v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Consolidated Rail Corporation, Intervenors. Sea-Land Service, Inc. And Sea-Land Freight Service, Inc. v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Totem Ocean Trailer Express, Inc., Intervenor. H.C. Spinks Clay Co., Inc. v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Board of Trade of the City of Chicago v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Consolidated Rail Corporation, Intervenors. Sandersville Railroad Company v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Illinois Central Gulf Railroad Co. v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Chattahoochee Industrial Railroad, Great Southern Paper, Leaf River Forest Products, Inc., and the Old Augusta Railroad Co. v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Bessemer and Lake Erie Railroad Company and Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway Company v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, American Paper Institute, Inc. v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Lamoille Valley Railroad Co., of Morrisville, Lamoille County, Vermont v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Rubber Manufacturers Association v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, National Industrial Transportation League, Intervenor. Evans Products Company v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Board of Port Commissioners for the City of Oakland v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, the National Industrial Transportation League v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission

2. ““It is not for courts to weigh the evidence introduced before the Commissipn, Western Papermakers’ Chemical Co. v. United States, 271 U.S. 268, 271 , 46 S.Ct. 500 , 70 L.Ed. 941 ; or to inquire into the soundness of the reasoning by which its conclusions are reached, Interstate Commerce Commission v. Illinois Central R. R. Co., 215 U.S. 452, 471 , 30 S.Ct. 155 , 54 L.Ed. 280 ; Skinner & Eddy Corporation v. United States, 249 U.S. 557, 562 , 39 S. Ct. 375 , 63 L.Ed. 772 ; or to question the wisdom of regulations which it prescribes, United States v. New River Co., 265 U.S. 533, 542 , 44 S.Ct. 610 , 68 L.Ed. 1165 . These are matters left by Congress to the administrative ‘tribunal appointed by law and informed by experience.’ Illinois Central R. R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 206 U.S. 441, 454 , 27 S.Ct. 700, 704 , 51 L. Ed. 1128 .””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Koppers Co. v. United States · Florida East Coast Railway Co. v. United States

3. “The rule does not divert the surplus of cars owned by one shipper to use by another. It merely puts a restriction upon the use of the private car by limiting the number of the so-called assigned cars, which may be placed at a particular mine at a particular time. The owner may use the surplus elsewhere. Or he may lease the surplus cars to the carrier or to another shipper.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Sebring Utilities Commission v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission