Interstate Commerce Commission v. Jersey City’s Empirical Analysis
322 U.S. 503 · 1944
Citation profile
318 federal appellate · 126 district · 80 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 967 later decisions (38 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2024 · most notably United States v. Nixon (1974), Bowman Transportation, Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc. (1975)
318 federal appellate · 126 district · 80 state decisions — followed in 18 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 Federal Power Commission v. Hope Natural Gas Co. · Hecht Co. v. Bowles · Federal Communications Commission v. Pottsville Broadcasting Co. · Rochester Telephone Corporation v. United States · Federal Power Commission v. Natural Gas Pipeline 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 967 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It has been almost a rule of necessity that rehearings were not matters of right, but were pleas to discretion. And likewise it has been considered that the discretion to be invoked was that of the body making the order, and not that of a reviewing body.”
48 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he Commission's order does not become suspect by reason of the fact that it is challenged. It is the product of expert judgment which carries a presumption of validity. And he who would upset the rate order under the Act carries the heavy burden of making a convincing showing that it is invalid. * * *”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The court below gave as a second reason for setting aside the two orders that the Commission ‘lightly brushed aside’ the economic stabilization phase of the case and gave too little weight to the Price Administrator’s contentions as to inflationary tendencies of rate increases. It said, and of course we agree, that the ‘Commission here is under a distinct duty in this particular case, to give full effect to war time conditions and the stabilization legislation.’ “But that does not answer the real question, which is what is the effect of the stabilization legislation. In seeking this answer we are inquiring as to the relative powers and responsibilities of two federal agencies. Congress was free to apportion their functions as it saw fit and to transfer any part of the normal responsibility of the Commission to the Price Administrator or other executive agencies. Commerce Commission authorization of rate increases could have been subjected to review or veto so far as any objection of the Commission is concerned. * * * * * “In the light of such history this Court has been reluctant to construe the emergency legislation as giving the Administrator standing to make mandatory demands upon other tribunals or to strip them of their usual discretions. * * * * * “The Interstate Commerce Commission has responsibility for maintaining an adequate system of wartime transportation. It is without power to protect these essential transportation agencies from rising labor and material dosts.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.