Tagg Bros. & Moorhead v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
280 U.S. 420 · 1930
Citation profile
162 federal appellate · 76 district · 98 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 620 later decisions (87 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2023 · most notably Consolidated Edison Co of New York v. National Labor Relations Board (1938), National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. (1937)
162 federal appellate · 76 district · 98 state decisions — followed in 24 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 Stafford v. Wallace · Interstate Commerce Commission v. Union Pacific Railroad · Adkins v. Children's Hospital of the District of Columbia Same · Akron Ry Co v. United States · Colorado v. United States
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 620 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It has long been settled that determinations of fact for ordinary administrative purposes are not subject to review. * * * Such administrative findings on issues of fact are accepted by the court as conclusive if the evidence was legally sufficient to sustain them and there was no irregularity in the proceedings.””
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It has been settled in cases arising under the Interstate Commerce Act [49 US CA § 1 et seq.] that, if an order rests upon an erroneous rule of law, Interstate Commerce Commission v. Diffenbaugh, 222 U. S. 42 , 32 S. Ct. 22 , 56 L. Ed. 83 , or is based upon a finding made without evidence, Chicago Junction Case, 264 U. S. 258 , 263, 44 S. Ct. 317 , 68 L. Ed. 667 , or upon evidence which clearly does not support it, Interstate Commerce Commission v. Union Pacific R. Co., 222 U. S. 541 , 547, 32 S. Ct. 108 , 56 L. Ed. 308 ; New England Divisions Case, 261 U. S. 184 , 203, 43 S. Ct. 270 , 67 L. Ed. 605 ; Colorado v. United States, 271 U. S. 153 , 166, 46 S. Ct. 452 , 70 L. Ed. 878 , the order must be set aside.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[e]very rate order made may be superseded by another.”
2 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.