Mitchell v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

78 federal appellate · 27 district · 31 state decisions

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

1. “not merely a group of individuals, or a body of persons according to their numbers,”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. John Doe, a Minor, by His Mother and Next Friend, Jane Doe, and Josephine Helelani Pauahi Rabago, Intervenor, Kamehameha Schools/bernice Pauahi Bishop Estate Constance H. Lau, Nainoa Thompson, Diane J. Plotts, Robert K.U. Kihune, J. Douglasing, in Their Capacities as Trustees of the Kamehameha Schools/bernice Pauahi Bishop Estate · County of Camden v. Pennsauken Sewerage Authority

2. ““First. — The Commission challenges the standing of appellant to bring this suit. We find the objection untenable. This question does not touch the merits of the suit, but merely the authority of the District Court to entertain it. The fact that the Commission’s order was one of dismissal of appellant’s complaint did not foreclose the right of review. Appellant was an aggrieved party and the negative form of the order is not controlling. Rochester Telephone Corp. v. United States, 307 U.S. 125, 143 , 59 S.Ct. 754, 763 , 83 L.Ed. 1147 . “Nor is it determinative that it does not appear that appellant intends to make a similar railroad journey. He is an American citizen free to travel, and he is entitled to go by this particular route whenever he chooses to take it and in that event to have facilities for his journey without any discrimination against him which the Interstate Commerce Act forbids. He presents the question whether the Act does forbid the conduct of which he complains. “The question of appellant’s right to seek review of the Commission’s order thus involves the primary question of administrative authority, that is, whether appellant took an appropriate course in seeking a ruling of the Commission. The established function of the Commission gives the answer. The determination whether a discrimination by an interstate carrier is unjust and unlawful necessitates an in quiry into particular facts and the practice of the carrier in a particular relation, and this under”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad v. United States · 2 Ill. 2d 382 - Ill. Cent. RR Co. v. COMMERCE COM'N

3. “■ “The Government puts tbe ihatter ■ succinctly : ‘When a drawing room is Available, the carrier practice of allowing- colored passengers to use one at Pullman seat rates avoids inequality as between the accommodations specifically assigned to the passenger. But when none is available, as on tbe trip which occasioned this litigation, the discrimination and inequality of accommodation become self-evident.. It is no answer to say that the colored passengers, if sufficiently diligent and forehanded, can make their reservations so far in advance as to be assured of first-class accommodations.- -So -long as white passengers .can secure first-class reservations. on the day of travel and .the colored passengers ■ cannot, the latter are subjected to, inequality and discrimination because of their race’. And the Commis:sion has recognized that inequality persists with respect to certain, other facilities such as dining-car and observation-parlor car accommodations. “We take it that the chief reason for the Commission’s action was the -‘comparatively little colored traffic’. But the comparative volume of -traffic cannot justify the denial of a fundamental- right of equality of treatment, a right'-specifically safeguarded by the provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act. -We- thought a similar argument with respect to volume of traffic to be untenable in the application of the Fourteenth Amendment. We said that it made the constitutional right depend upon the number of persons who may b”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Henderson v. Interstate Commerce Commission