Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 310 U.S. 344 - United States v. Chicago Heights Trucking Co.

United States v. Chicago Heights Trucking Co.’s Empirical Analysis

310 U.S. 344 · 1940

Citation profile

239
cited by 239 later decisions
27
cited 27 times by the Supreme Court
7
states following
October 1998
most recently cited

71 federal appellate · 39 district · 14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 239 later decisions (27 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 1998 · most notably McLean Trucking Co. v. United States (1944), American Trucking Associations v. Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company National Automobile Transporters Association of Detroit Michigan (1967)

71 federal appellate · 39 district · 14 state decisions

650194019501960197019801990decided

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 Swayne & Hoyt, Ltd. v. United States · Texas Ry Co v. Interstate Commerce Commission · Illinois Central Railroad Company v. Interstate Commerce Commission · Manufacturers Railway Co. v. United States · United States v. Illinois Cent R Co Wyoming 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 239 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “the courts have always recognized that Congress intended to commit to the Commission the determination, by application of an informed judgment to existing facts, of the existence of forbidden preferences, advantages and discrimination.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Forwarders utilize common carriers by rail and-motor truck to transport goods owned by others. They solicit and obtain many small shipments, from various points within an area, and cause them to be carried in less than truckload or carload lots to a concentration center within the area. There they are assembled by the forwarder for further trans portation in truckload or carload lots. Although the forwarder gives owners of individual small shipments his own contract corresponding in form to through hills of lading and assumes responsibility for safe through carriage, the forwarder customarily arranges for the pickup, assembly and transportation of the shipments by carriers for hire. And the forwarders, not the owners of the goods, select the carriers and route the shipments. Upon arrival of a truckload or carload of the assembled small shipments at a distribution center, the bulk shipment is broken up, the forwarder separates and takes possession of the original small shipments and arranges, where necessary, their further carriage to their various final destinations in the area served by the particular distribution point. In this final carriage of the small shipment to its ultimate destination, the forwarder again utilizes carriers for hire to move these less than truckload or carload lots. Thus, forwarders may use the serv-. ice of carriers to assemble shipments of less than truckload or carload lots at their concentration center, to transport the assembled truckload or car”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““ ‘It is not disputable that from the beginning the very purpose for which the Commission was created was to bring into existence a body, which from its peculiar character, would be most fitted to primarily decide whether from facts, disputed or undisputed, in a given case, preference or discrimination existed.’ And where a court substituted ‘its judgment as to the existence of preference for that of the Commission, on the ground that where there was no dispute as to the facts it had a right to do so, [the court] obviously exerted an authority not conferred upon it by the statute.’ ””
    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.