United States v. Idaho’s Empirical Analysis
298 U.S. 105 · 1936
Citation profile
60 federal appellate · 9 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 155 later decisions (14 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2001 · most notably Rochester Telephone Corporation v. United States (1939), Shields v. Utah Idaho Central Railroad (1938)
60 federal appellate · 9 district · 2 state decisions
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 Tagg Bros. & Moorhead v. United States · Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Co. · Texas & New Orleans Railroad v. Northside Belt Railway Co. · Alabama Ry Co v. Jackson & E Ry 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 155 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Oregon Short Line has never maintained a train schedule or regular service over this trackage; has never furnished express, passenger, or mail service; has maintained no buildings, loading platforms, or agent at any point along the trackage; and has had no telegraph or telephone line in connection therewith. Bills of lading for cars of coal are made out by the mine company. There are practically no shipments in the opposite direction; the few supplies for the mine being sent up in the empty coal cars when ordered. 28 "The District Court concluded that the Talbot branch was constructed and has been maintained for the purpose of serving a single industry; that practically no other industry is served; that this trackage does not invade new territory; that its continued operation or abandonment is of local and not of national concern; that it is therefore a `spur'; and hence, that the order of the Interstate Commerce Commission was in excess of its jurisdiction. * * * 29 "The decree should be affirmed, because on findings amply supported by the evidence the trackage is a spur. * * *”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he Act, reasonably construed, distinguishes between ... extensions, voluntarily undertaken ...; compulsory extensions ...; and spur, industrial, team, switching or side tracks located wholly within one State, which are left within state control”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“if ... branch should be held to be a spur, it could not be abandoned legally without the consent of the Public Utilities Commission of Idaho”
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.