United States v. Carolina Freight Carriers Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
315 U.S. 475 · 1942
Citation profile
39 federal appellate · 115 district · 58 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 550 later decisions (87 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 1996 · most notably Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation (1943), Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States (1962)
39 federal appellate · 115 district · 58 state decisions — followed in 16 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 Opp Cotton Mills, Inc. v. Administrator of the Wage & Hour Division of the Department of Labor · Gray v. Powell · United States v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific R. · Florida 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 550 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The Act provides the test of `bona fide operation'. That standard carries the connotation of substantiality. It also makes clear that a holding out to serve a specified area is not alone sufficient. * * * Substantial, as distinguished from incidental, sporadic, or infrequent, service is required. * * * In addition, the Commission, in determining the precise territory which may be served by a particular carrier cannot be unmindful of its responsibility to coordinate the various transportation agencies which constitute our national transportation system * * *. "* * * [T]he purpose of the `grandfather clause' was to assure those to whom Congress had extended its benefits a `substantial parity between future operations and prior bona fide operations'." ( 315 U.S. 475, 480-481 , 62 S.Ct. 722, 726 ).”
13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ * * * 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.” United States v. Carolina Freight Carriers Corp., supra, pp. 483, 484, 62 S.Ct. p. 727.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ * * * So far as southbound shipments are concerned, it is plain that a wide variety of articles was transported consistently with appellee’s holding out that it would carry any of the articles from any of the points. Appellee’s ‘bona fide operation’ may possibly be limited only to those articles actually carried. But where it was actively soliciting whatever it could get at any of the points, it does violence to its common carrier status to make the origin or destination of future shipments conform to the precise pattern-of the old. Such a pulverization of the prior course of conduct changes its basic characteristics. There is no statutory sanction for such a procedure.” (Emphasis ours).”
4 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.