Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 287 U.S. 488 - Wabash Valley Electric Co. v. Young

Wabash Valley Electric Co. v. Young’s Empirical Analysis

287 U.S. 488 · 1933

Citation profile

108
cited by 108 later decisions
35
cited 35 times by the Supreme Court
11
states following
June 1998
most recently cited

17 federal appellate · 4 district · 41 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 108 later decisions (35 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 1998 · most notably Colorado Interstate Gas Co. v. Federal Power Commission (1945), St. Joseph Stock Yards Co. v. United States (1936)

17 federal appellate · 4 district · 41 state decisions — followed in 11 states

6301933194019501960197019801990decided

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 Simpson v. Shepard · Smith v. Illinois Bell Telephone Co. · Utah Power & Light Co. v. Pfost · Wabash St Ry Co v. State of Illinois · United Fuel Gas Co. v. Railroad Commission

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 108 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““Normally, the unit for rade-making purposes, we may assume, would be the entire interconnected operating' property of a utility used and useful for the convenience of the public in the territory served, without regard to particular groups of consumers or local subdivisions. But. conditions may be such as to require or permit the fixing of a smaller unit. (Emphasis supplied.) * * * $ * * “The three cases last cited recognize that, where the business of a carrier or utility is both interstate and intrastate, the state rates for intrastate transportation or business must be determined by a separate consideration of the value of the property employed in the intrastate business. It is true that there such a separation is made necessary because a different government exercises the rate making power in each of the two fields of regulation, and that situation is wanting here. Nevertheless, the cases furnish a helpful illustration in support of the application of a similar rule in the case now under review.””
    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.