Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 275 U.S. 164 - City of Hammond v. Schappi Bus Line, Inc.

City of Hammond v. Schappi Bus Line, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

275 U.S. 164 · 1927

Citation profile

204
cited by 204 later decisions
53
cited 53 times by the Supreme Court
12
states following
July 2005
most recently cited

37 federal appellate · 9 district · 39 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 204 later decisions (53 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2005 · most notably Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority (1936), Zorach v. Clauson (1952)

37 federal appellate · 9 district · 39 state decisions — followed in 12 states

740192719301940195019601970198019902000decided

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

reviewedSchappi Bus Line, Inc. v. City of Hammond (from Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Hess v. Pawloski · John Hendrick v. State of Maryland · Frank Kane v. State of New Jersey · Packard v. Banton · Frost & Frost Trucking Co. v. Railroad 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 204 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “* * * before [a question] of constitutional law, both novel and of far reaching importance, [is] passed upon * * * `the facts essential to [its] decision should be definitely found by the lower [court] upon adequate evidence.'”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““The appeal was from the interlocutory decree denying the preliminary injunction____ The case was not yet ripe for final disposition by the Court of Appeals. ... Findings and rulings if now made on the basis of the evidence presented at the hearing on the application for the temporary injunction, might be rendered of no avail by the presentation of other or additional evidence when the case comes on for final hearing.””
    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.