Stephenson v. Binford’s Empirical Analysis
287 U.S. 251 · 1932
Citation profile
48 federal appellate · 18 district · 296 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 536 later decisions (83 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2016 · most notably Nebbia v. People of State of New York (1934), Home Building & Loan Ass'n v. Blaisdell (1934)
48 federal appellate · 18 district · 296 state decisions — followed in 33 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 Village of Euclid Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co · M'Culloch v. State of Maryland · Henning Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts · Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Mottley · Sproles v. Binford
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 536 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is well established law that the highways of the state are public property; that their primary and preferred use is for private purposes; and that their use for purposes of gain is special and extraordinary, which, generally at least, the legislature may prohibit or condition as it sees fit.””
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“has the result of modifying or abrogating contracts already in effect.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Wood v. Lovett · In Re Evans““Turning our attention then to the provision for permits, it is to be observed that the requirement is not that the private contract carrier shall obtain a certificate of public convenience and necessity, but that he shall obtain a permit, the issue of which is made dependent upon the condition that the efficiency of common carrier service then adequately serving the same territory shall not be impaired. Does the required relation here exist between the condition imposed and the end sought? We think it does. But, in any event, if the Legislature so concluded, as it evidently did, that conclusion must stand, since we are not able to say that in reaching it that body was manifestly wrong. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U. S. 11, 30, 31 , 25 S. Ct. 358 , 49 L. Ed. 643 , 3 Ann. Cas. 765. Compare Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U. S. 365, 395 , 47 S. Ct. 114 , 71 L. Ed. 303 , 54 A. L. R. 1016; Zahn v. Board of Public Works, 274 U. S. 325, 328 , 47 S. Ct. 594 , 71 L. Ed. 1074 . Debatable questions of this character are not for the courts, but for the Legislature, which is entitled to form its own judgment. Sproles v. Binford, 286 U. S. 374, 388, 389 , 52 S. Ct. 581 , 76 L. Ed. 1167 . Leaving out of consideration common carriers by trucks, impairment of the railway freight service, in the very nature of things, must result, to some degree, in adding to the burden imposed upon the highways. Or, stated conversely, any diversion of traffic from the highways to the railroads must corre”
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.