Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 296 U.S. 506 - Public Service Commission v. Havemeyer

Public Service Commission v. Havemeyer’s Empirical Analysis

296 U.S. 506 · 1936

Citation profile

86
cited by 86 later decisions
17
cited 17 times by the Supreme Court
5
states following
July 2003
most recently cited

20 federal appellate · 3 district · 15 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 86 later decisions (17 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2003 · most notably Walling US v. General Industries Co (1947), Helvering v. Lerner Stores Corp. (1941)

20 federal appellate · 3 district · 15 state decisions

51019361940195019601970198019902000decided

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

reviewedHavemeyer v. Public Service Commission (from First Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Langnes v. Green · Federal Radio Commission v. Nelson Bros. Bond & Mortgage Co. · Sinking-Fund Cases v. United States Central Pacific Railroad Company · Puerto Rico v. Russell & Co. · Keller v. Potomac Electric Power Co.

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

  1. ““. . . . On the appeal the district court was not authorized to substitute for those of the commission its own •views as to what action would be just or ought to be taken, or to perform any legislative, •executive or administrative function. Its only jurisdiction was to decide upon the record certified to it by the commission whether the ■order was (1) reasonable, (2) in conformity with the law, (3) based upon incompetent evidence. ‘Reasonable’ as here employed means ‘not capricious,’ ‘arbitrary’ or ‘confiscatory.’ Whether the order of cancellation was reasonable in the sense that it did not transgress, permissible limits is a question of law . . . The permissible scope of the determinations and judgment of the court is significant. It may only decide the questions of law raised by the appeal and affirm or reverse the order or remand the record to the commission for further action. It is without authority to amend or modify an order of the commission. The jurisdiction and duties of the supreme court and Circuit Court of Appeals are similar in all respects to those of the district court. Neither has any power or function other than what is strictly judicial.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “neither has any power or function other than what is strictly judicial.”
    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.