Crancer v. Lowden’s Empirical Analysis
315 U.S. 631 · 1942
Citation profile
46 federal appellate · 6 district · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 110 later decisions (14 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2010 · most notably United States v. Western Pacific Railroad (1956), Reiter v. Cooper (1993)
46 federal appellate · 6 district · 12 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
reviewedCrancer v. Lowden (from Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Texas Pacific Railway Company v. Abilene Cotton Oil Company · Great Northern Railway Co. v. Merchants Elevator Co. · Pennsylvania Railroad Company v. International Coal Mining Company · Lowden v. Simonds-Shields-Lonsdale Grain 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 110 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]f petitioners pay the judgment in this case, and the Commission should, in the still pending proceeding, decide to modify the tariffs, petitioners can obtain a complete remedy by way of reparation. The form of the Circuit Court's judgment specifically preserved petitioners' right to such reparation. We hold that under the circumstances there was no abuse of discretion by the trial judge.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Nothing involved in the pending administrative proceedings before the Interstate Commerce Commission was essential to the determination of the issue in this suit. If the trial judge had, in the exercise of his discretion, continued the trial of the cause until such time as the Commission had passed upon the reasonableness of the rate, the delay might have made it impossible for the carrier to produce the witnesses who had made the inspection of the shipments. On the other hand, the petitioners [shippers] suffered no hardship as a result of the trial court’s insistence on proceeding with the trial. If petitioners pay the judgment in this case, and the Commission should, in the still pending proceeding, decide to modify the tariffs, petitioners can obtain a complete remedy by way of reparation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“opinion could hardly have been more relevant to the question before the District Court.... [Consequently], [w]e think ... the District Court properly admitted and considered the administrative determination of virtually the same question as that before it.”
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.