Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 320 U.S. 368 - Interstate Commerce Commission v. Hoboken Manufacturers' Railroad

Interstate Commerce Commission v. Hoboken Manufacturers' Railroad’s Empirical Analysis

320 U.S. 368 · 1943

Citation profile

64
cited by 64 later decisions
12
cited 12 times by the Supreme Court
May 2007
most recently cited

17 federal appellate · 10 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 64 later decisions (12 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2007 · most notably United States v. United States Smelting Refining & Mining Co. (1950), Richard A. Williams and Alfred S. Trask v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission, D.C. Transit System, Inc., Intervenor. Democratic Central Committee of the District of Columbia, Leonard N. Bebchick and Daniel W. Gottlieb v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission, D.C. Transit System, Inc., Intervenor. D.C. Transit System, Inc. v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission (1969)

17 federal appellate · 10 district ·

2601943195019601970198019902000decided

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 Rochester Telephone Corporation v. United States · Mississippi Valley Barge Line Co. v. United States · Akron Ry Co v. United States · General American Tank Car Corporation v. El Dorado Terminal Co · United States & Interstate Commerce Commission v. Abilene & Southern 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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “one aspect of the general rate policy which Congress has directed the Commission to establish and administer in the public interest.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “unjust, unreasonable, inequitable, or unduly preferential or prejudicial as between the carriers.”
    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.