Railroad Commission of California v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co’s Empirical Analysis
302 U.S. 388 · 1938
Citation profile
82 federal appellate · 23 district · 145 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 338 later decisions (39 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2025 · most notably Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman (1984), Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath (1951)
82 federal appellate · 23 district · 145 state decisions — followed in 25 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.
Relationships
Relies on Smyth v. Ames · Olson v. United States · Simpson v. Shepard · Morgan v. United States · Ohio Bell Telephone Co. v. Public Utilities Commission
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 338 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The right to a fair and open hearing is one of the rudiments of fair play assured to every litigant by the Federal Constitution as a minimal requirement. Ohio Bell Telephone Co. v. Public Utilities Comm'n, 301 U.S. 292 , 304, 305.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Because of the federal question raised by the bill of complaint, the District Court had jurisdiction to determine all the questions in the case, local as well as federal.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““In the present case the Utility introduced evidence in two categories, one of which it termed historical cost and the other present value. It defined its asserted net historical cost rate base as including ‘original cost of the property together with acquisition cost (where purchased from predecessor companies) plus experienced engineering and other overhead costs excluded from original cost on the Company’s books, together with the estimated cost of plant in process of construction or projected to meet existing loads and service requirements,’ and its asserted present value rate base as ‘the cost new either actual or estimated of the property of Appellant reflecting price levels at December 31, 1949, less allowance for loss in value due to deterioration, obsolescence and other factors. ’ It now asserts that the respondent rejected all the testimony and exhibits relating to the present value of its property and ‘used the cost rate base.’ “The respondent was entitled to determine the probative force of the Utility’s evidence upon both of its asserted rate bases. Assuming that in doing so it eliminated for valid reasons all the Utility’s evidence relating to purported ‘present value’ as being without sufficient weight to constitute a reasonable basis for the establishment of increased rates, that fact alone would not render its decision and order invalid, for it was left with evidence of historical cost which is admissible, and if that is sufficient or substantial, competent a”
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.