Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 292 U.S. 1 - Florida v. United States

Florida v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

292 U.S. 1 · 1934

Citation profile

189
cited by 189 later decisions
48
cited 48 times by the Supreme Court
7
states following
April 1982
most recently cited

38 federal appellate · 19 district · 21 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 189 later decisions (48 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 1982 · most notably United States v. Darby (1941), Carter v. Carter Coal Co. (1936)

38 federal appellate · 19 district · 21 state decisions

850193419401950196019701980decided

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 Crowell v. Benson · Interstate Commerce Commission v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad · Houston East West Texas Railway Company v. United States · Virginian Ry Co v. United States · Florida 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 189 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “without prejudice to the right of the authorities of the State of Florida or of any other interested party to apply in the proper manner for a modification of its (our) findings and order as to any specified intrastate rate on the ground that it is not related to interstate rates in such a way as to contravene the provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “any undue or unreasonable advantage, preference, or prejudice as between persons or localities in intrastate commerce on the one hand and interstate or foreign commerce on the other hand, or any undue, unreasonable, or unjust discrimination against interstate or foreign commerce,”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “the need, in the public interest, of adequate and efficient railway transportation service at the lowest cost consistent with the furnishing of such service”
    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.