Pittsburgh Ry Co v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
281 U.S. 479 · 1930
Citation profile
80 federal appellate · 51 district · 18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 272 later decisions (36 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2017 · most notably Chicot County Drainage District v. Baxter State Bank (1940), Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Wichita Board of Trade (1973)
80 federal appellate · 51 district · 18 state decisions
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 Chicago Junction Case · Tagg Bros. & Moorhead v. United States · Alexander Sprunt & Son, Inc. v. United States · Great Northern Railway Co. 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 272 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The mere fact that [petitioner] was permitted to intervene before the Commission does not entitle it to institute an independent suit to set aside the Commission's order in the absence of resulting actual or threatened legal injury to it.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Second. The prayer that the contemplated action of the Wheeling should be enjoined because its directors hold office illegally, are faithless to their trust, are acting in violation of the rights of stockholders under the Ohio law, and, hence, that the Wheeling could not legally exercise the authority granted to it by the Commission, was not properly joined in this suit and is not subject to review in this Court on a direct appeal. An application for such relief may not be included in a bill under the Urgent Deficiencies Act to set aside an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission. (Citing cases). It is neither ancillary to nor dependent upon the judgment as to the order. Relief of that character may be had only in a suit invoking the plenary equity jurisdiction of the District Court. Such a suit would be heard in ordinary course by a single judge; and it would be appealable only to the Circuit Court of Appeals.” (Emphasis supplied.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“ancillary to setting aside the order of the Commission * * * in order to carry out the purpose of Congress to make the judicial review effective.”
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.