Standard Oil Co. v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
283 U.S. 235 · 1931
Citation profile
72 federal appellate · 32 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 210 later decisions (41 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 1980 · most notably Rochester Telephone Corporation v. United States (1939), Humphrey's Ex'r v. United States (1935)
72 federal appellate · 32 district · 1 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 Great Northern Railway Co. v. Merchants Elevator Co. · Interstate Commerce Commission v. Union Pacific Railroad · Illinois Central Railroad Company v. Interstate Commerce Commission · Manufacturers Railway Co. v. United States · Procter Gamble Company v. United States of America
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 210 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““But putting the foregoing grounds entirely aside, and assuming the correctness of appellant’s contentions to the contrary, nevertheless, having regard to the remedy invoked and the relief sought by the petition, we think the district court was without jurisdiction. Section 9 of the Interstate Commerce Act, c. 104, 24 Stat. 379 , 382 (U.S.C., Title 49 § 90 ( 49 U.S.C.A. § 9 ) ), provides that a claim for damages against a common carrier may be brought before the Commission by complaint, or by an action in a federal district court of competent jurisdiction, but that the claimant or claimants ‘shall not have the right to pursue both of said remedies, and must in each case elect which one of the two methods of procedure herein provided for he or they will adopt/ Having elected to proceed and having proceeded to a determination before the Commission, appellant was, by force of this provision, precluded from seeking reparation upon the same claims by the alternative method of procedure. Compare George A. Hormel & Co. v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 8 Cir., 283 F. 915, 918 . “It is true that appellant sought to enjoin and set aside the order of the Commission, but only as a preliminary step toward obtaining, by a decision upon the merits of the claims, the same relief it failed to secure from the Commission. This is made clear by the prayer of the petition, already quoted, namely, that the Commission be directed by the court to grant the prayer of the complaints; find that petitio”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““A negative order which denies relief without more compels nothing requiring enforcement, and contemplates no action susceptible of being stayed by an injunction or affected by a decree setting aside, annulling, or suspending the order. “The question in the present case depends upon the correct interpretation and application of the second subdivision of the act conferring jurisdiction, referred to and quoted supra; and necessarily the district court was without jurisdiction under the settled construction of that provision by which the authority of the court is limited to the review of affirmative orders, with ‘power to relieve parties in whole or in part from the duty of obedience to orders which are found to be illegal.’ Procter & Gamble Co. v. United States, 225 U. S. 282, 292, 293 (32 Sup. Ct. 761); Manufacturers Ry. Co. v. United States, 246 U. S. 457, 483 (38 Sup. Ct. 383); Piedmont & Nor. Ry. Co. v. United States, 280 U. S. 469, 477 (50 Sup. Ct. 192).””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The case before the Commission did not, as contended, involve merely the construction of the written words employed in a rate tariff — a simple question of law; but required consideration of matters of fact and the application of expert knowledge for the ascertainment of the technical meaning of the words and a correct appreciation of a variety of incidents affecting their use. It is evident from an inspection of the record, as the Commission in its first report said, that ‘both cases •concern unusually complicated and technical tariff situations,’ the proper determination of which called for the exercise of the trained judgment of that body of experts, ‘appointed by law and informed by •experience.’ Illinois Central R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Comm., 206 U.S. 441, 454 , 27 S.Ct. 700 , 51 L.Ed. 1128 . And to that body, in the interest of uniformity, the determination must be left.””
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.