Interstate Commerce Commission v. United States ex rel. Campbell’s Empirical Analysis
289 U.S. 385 · 1933
Citation profile
102 federal appellate · 12 district · 28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 251 later decisions (24 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2012 · most notably Elgin Ry Co v. Burley (1945), Roche v. Evaporated Milk Ass'n (1943)
102 federal appellate · 12 district · 28 state decisions — followed in 10 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedUnited States ex rel. Campbell v. Interstate Commerce Commission (from District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Keogh v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co. · Great Northern Railway Co. v. Merchants Elevator Co. · Pennsylvania Railroad Company v. International Coal Mining Company · Wilbur v. United States ex rel. Kadrie · Mitchell Coal Coke Company v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company
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 251 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Overcharge and discrimination have very different consequences, and must be kept distinct in thought. * * * If by reason of the discrimination, the preferred producers have been able to divert business that would otherwise have gone to the disfavored shipper, damage has resulted to the extent of the diverted profits. If the effect of the discrimination has been to force the shipper to sell at a lowered market price * * * damage has resulted to the extent of the reduction. But none of these consequences is a necessary inference from discrimination without more.” (Emphasis added.)”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage“[In applying the rule of damages] there is a call upon the judge to think and act judicially, to use judgment and discretion. Errors of law in the discharge of a function essentially judicial are not subject to be corrected through the writ of mandamus any more than errors of fact. If the Commission had declined to listen to the claim for reparation, or finding reparation due had declined to order payment, mandamus might have been available to hold it to its duty. That is not what happened. The Commission heard the complaint and proceeded to a decision. If the mandamus were to stand, the result would not be to compel the Commission to adjudicate the cause, for that it has already done; the result would be to compel an adjudication in a particular way. The rule is elementary that this is not the function of the writ. Mandamus is an appropriate remedy to compel a judicial officer to act. It may not be used as a substitute for an appeal or writ of error to dictate the manner of his action. Interstate Commerce Commission v. Waste Merchants Ass’n, 260 U.S. 32 , 34 [ 43 S.Ct. 6 , 67 L.Ed. 112 ]; Wilbur v. Kadrie, 281 U.S. 206 , 218 [ 50 S.Ct. 320 , 74 L.Ed. 809 ]; Interstate Commerce Commission v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. Co., 287 U.S. 178 , 204 [ 53 S.Ct. 106 , 77 L.Ed. 248 ].”
3 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.