Alton Co v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
315 U.S. 15 · 1942
Citation profile
73 federal appellate · 83 district · 34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 411 later decisions (50 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2024 · most notably Hardin v. Kentucky Utilities Co. (1968), United States v. Carolina Freight Carriers Corp. (1942)
73 federal appellate · 83 district · 34 state decisions — followed in 12 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 Chicago Junction Case · Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Co. · McDonald v. Thompson · Pittsburgh Ry Co v. United States
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 411 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * The Commission may not atomize his prior service, product by product, so as to restrict the scope of his operations, where there is substantial evidence in addition to his holding out that he was in ‘bona fide operation’ as a ‘common carrier’ of a large group of commodities or of a whole class or classes of property. There might be substantial evidence of such an undertaking though the evidence as to any one article was not substantial. The broad sweep of his prior service may indeed have made the carriage of any one commodity irregular and infrequent. Yet, viewed as a whole rather than as a group of separate and unrelated items, his prior activities may satisfy the test of ‘bona fide operation’ as a ‘common carrier’ within the scope of his holding out. * * * ” (Emphasis ours).”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“substantial parity between future operations and prior bona fide operations”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"`Territory' is not a word of art. The characteristics of the transportation service involved as well as the geographical area serviced are relevant to the territorial scope of the operations which may be authorized under the `grandfather clause'. While the test of `bona fide operation' within a specified `territory' includes `actual rather than potential or simulated service' (McDonald v. Thompson, 305 U.S. 263, 266 , 59 S.Ct. 176 , 83 L.Ed. 164 ), it does not necessarily restrict future operations to the precise points or areas already served. The characteristics of the transportation service rendered may of necessity have made trips to any specified locality irregular or sporadic. And they may likewise have restricted prior operations to but a few points in a wide area which the carrier held itself out as being willing and able to serve." ( 315 U.S. 15, 20-21 , 62 S.Ct. 432, 436 ).”
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.