Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 287 U.S. 502 - Atlantic Coast Line R. v. Ford

Atlantic Coast Line R. v. Ford’s Empirical Analysis

287 U.S. 502 · 1933

Citation profile

84
cited by 84 later decisions
9
cited 9 times by the Supreme Court
8
states following
April 2011
most recently cited

18 federal appellate · 6 district · 28 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 84 later decisions (9 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2011 · most notably Usery v. Turner Elkhorn Mining Co. (1976), Los Angeles Gas Electric Corporation v. Railroad Commission of California (1933)

18 federal appellate · 6 district · 28 state decisions

220193319401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Ry Co v. Sunburst Oil & Refining Co · Hem v. United States · Thomas Patterson v. People of the State of Colorado Ex Rel Attorney General of the State of Colorado · Mobile Jackson Kansas City Railroad Company v. J a Turnipseed · Alonzo Bailey v. State of Alabama

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

  1. “The objection that because the presumption applies only to railway companies, its effect is to deprive appellants of the equal protection of the laws is clearly untenable.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “That a legislative presumption of one fact from evidence of another may not constitute a denial of due process of law or a denial of the equal protection of the law, it is only essential that there shall be some rational connection between the fact proved and the ultimate fact presumed, and that the inference of one fact from proof of another shall not be so unreasonable as to be a purely arbitrary mandate.”
    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.