Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 307 F.2d 230 - Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Bouziden

Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Bouziden’s Empirical Analysis

307 F.2d 230 · 1962

Citation profile

33
cited by 33 later decisions
2
states following
July 2007
most recently cited

11 federal appellate · 4 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently July 2007 · most notably Illinois Central Gulf Railroad Company v. Golden Triangle Wholesale Gas Company (1978), Bartlett-Collins Company, a Corporation v. Surinam Navigation Company, a Corporation, Bartlett-Collins International, C. A., a Corporation v. South African Marine Corporation, Ltd., a Corporation, Bartlett-Collins International, C. A., a Corporation v. Surinam Navigation Company, a Corporation (1967)

11 federal appellate · 4 district · 4 state decisions

12019621970198019902000decided

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 Pennsylvania Railroad Company v. International Coal Mining Company · New York New Haven Hartford Railroad Company v. Interstate Commerce Commission · Louisville Co v. Central Iron & Coal Co · Lowden v. Simonds-Shields-Lonsdale Grain Co. · Davis v. Henderson

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

  1. “The salutary purpose of the [filed-rate doctrine] is to secure uniform treatment . . . and to shut out opportunity for discrimination and favoritism.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “To hold otherwise would open wide the door to unlawful discrimination.”). 19 . For example, the Supreme Court recognized that”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[T]he intricacies of private contract cannot be permitted to result in rate discrimination, actual or potential.”
    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.