Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 288 U.S. 469 - Central Transfer Co. v. Terminal Railroad

Central Transfer Co. v. Terminal Railroad’s Empirical Analysis

288 U.S. 469 · 1933

Citation profile

87
cited by 87 later decisions
21
cited 21 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
March 1991
most recently cited

18 federal appellate · 20 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 87 later decisions (21 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 1991 · most notably United States v. Philadelphia National Bank (1963), State of Georgia v. Pennsylvania R Co (1945)

18 federal appellate · 20 district · 2 state decisions

2901933194019501960197019801990decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedCentral Transfer Co. v. Terminal R. of St. Louis (from Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Texas Pacific Railway Company v. Abilene Cotton Oil Company · United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Ass'n · United States v. Joint-Traffic Ass'n. · Baltimore Ohio Railroad Company v. United Stated of America Ex Rel Pltcairn Coal Company · Merchants Warehouse Co. 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 87 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Under that section jurisdiction of the Commission does not delimit the jurisdiction of the federal courts to restrain violations of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Compare United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Ass'n, 166 U.S. 290 [17 S. Ct. 540, 41 L.Ed. 1007]; United States v. Joint Traffic Ass'n, 171 U.S. 505 [19 S.Ct. 25, 43 L.Ed. 259]. It affects only the capacity of a private party to maintain a suit to restrain violations. See General Investment Co. v. New York Central R. Co., 271 U.S. 228 [46 S.Ct. 496, 70 L.Ed. 920]. Its obvious purpose is to preclude any interference by injunction with any business or transactions of interstate carriers of sufficient public significance and importance to be within the jurisdiction of the Commission, except when the suit is brought by the Government itself. * * *”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “In case any common carrier subject to the provisions of this chapter shall do, cause to be done, or permit to be done any act, matter, or thing in this chapter prohibited or declared to be unlawful, or shall omit to do any act, matter, or thing in this chapter required to be done, such common carrier shall be liable to the person or persons injured thereby for the full amount of damages sustained in consequence of any such violation of the provisions of this chapter, together with a reasonable counsel or attorney's fee, to be fixed by the court in every case of recovery, which attorney's fee shall be taxed and collected as part of the costs in the case.”
    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.