Singer Sons v. Union Pac R Co Kansas City Mo’s Empirical Analysis
311 U.S. 295 · 1940
Citation profile
89 federal appellate · 10 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 168 later decisions (24 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2024 · most notably Federal Election Commission v. Akins (1998), United States v. Storer Broadcasting Co. (1956)
89 federal appellate · 10 district · 9 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedL. Singer & Sons v. Union Pac. R. Co. (from Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Massachusetts v. Mellon · Federal Communications Commission v. Sanders Bros. Radio Station · Colorado v. United States · New York Central Securities Corp. v. United States · Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway 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 168 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Such a suit cannot be instituted by an individual unless he ‘possesses something more than a common concern for obedience to law.’ The general or common interest finds protection in the permission to sue granted to public authorities. An individual may have some special and peculiar interest which may be directly and materially affected by alleged unlawful action. See Detroit & M. R. Co. v. Boyne City [G. & A. R.] Co., D. C., 286 Fed. 540 . If such circumstances are shown he may sue; he is then ‘party in interest’ within the meaning of the statute. In the absence of these circumstances he is not such a party. ’ ’”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is reading Sec. 1(20) without illumination of the scheme and purposes of the Transportation Act to expand the categories of public agencies explicitly named by Congress for enforcing Sec. 1(18) by including a city as a 'party in interest.' To do so would disregard [Congress's] recognition of a state utility commission as the special repository of all the interests of a state in this particular field, and of the Interstate Commerce Commission as the national organ for enforcing the body of interstate commerce acts.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“at the suit of the United States, the [Interstate Commerce] Commission, any commission or regulated body of the state or states affected, or any party in interest.”
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.