Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 292 U.S. 398 - Columbus Gas & Fuel Co. v. Public Utilities Commission

Columbus Gas & Fuel Co. v. Public Utilities Commission’s Empirical Analysis

292 U.S. 398 · 1934

Citation profile

168
cited by 168 later decisions
25
cited 25 times by the Supreme Court
20
states following
February 2008
most recently cited

28 federal appellate · 9 district · 92 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 168 later decisions (25 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2008 · most notably Federal Power Commission v. Hope Natural Gas Co. (1944), Federal Power Commission v. Natural Gas Pipeline Co. (1942)

28 federal appellate · 9 district · 92 state decisions — followed in 20 states

60019341940195019601970198019902000decided

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 Burnet v. Harmel · Los Angeles Gas Electric Corporation v. Railroad Commission of California · City of Knoxville v. Knoxville Water Co. · Lindheimer v. Illinois Bell Telephone Co. · Stratton's Independence, Ltd. v. Howbert

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

  1. ““[Certain gas leases purchased by the utility] ought not in fairness to be capitalized until present or imminent need for use as sources of supply shall have brought them into the base upon which profits must be earned. To capitalize them sooner is to build the rate structure of the business upon assets held in idleness to abide the uses of the future.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““In so far as a reasonable rate is something other or higher than one not strictly confiscatory (Banton v. Belt Line Ry. Corp., 268 U. S. 413, 423 ), the difference, if any, is determined with finality by the appointed officers of the state.””
    2 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.