New York Central Securities Corp. v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
287 U.S. 12 · 1932
Citation profile
158 federal appellate · 48 district · 91 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 588 later decisions (102 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2025 · most notably Mistretta v. United States (1989), Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath (1951)
158 federal appellate · 48 district · 91 state decisions — followed in 19 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 Northern Securities Company v. United States · Virginian Ry Co v. United States · 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 588 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he term “public interest” as thus used [in the statute] is not a concept without ascertainable criteria, but has direct relation to adequacy of transportation service, to its essential conditions of economy and efficiency, and to appropriate provision and best use of transportation facilities, questions to which the Interstate Commerce Commission has constantly addressed itself in the exercise of the authority conferred.”
18 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Whenever the commission is of opinion, after hearing, * * * that the acquisition, to the extent indicated by the commission, by one of such carriers of the control of any other such carrier or carriers either under a lease or * * * will be in the public interest, the commission shall have authority by order to approve * * V’”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Sec. 414. Any person affected by any order made under sections 408, 409, or 412 of this Act shall be, and is hereby, relieved from the operations of the ‘antitrust laws’, as designated in section 1 of the Act entitled ‘An Act to supplement existing laws against unlawful restraints and monopolies, and for other purposes’, approved October 15, 1914, and of all other restraints or prohibitions made by, or imposed under, authority of law, insofar as may be necessary to enable such person to do anything authorized, approved, or required by such order.””
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.