Interstate Commerce Commission v. Mechling’s Empirical Analysis
330 U.S. 567 · 1947
Citation profile
51 federal appellate · 31 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 193 later decisions (31 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 1987 · most notably Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States (1962), Arrow Transportation Company v. Southern Railway Company (1963)
51 federal appellate · 31 district · 7 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.
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 46 · 28 U.S.C. § 47
Relies on Lambert Run Coal Co. v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad · United States v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific R. · Florida v. United States · Board of Trade of Kansas City Mo v. United States · NORTH CAROLINA Et Al. v. UNITED STATES Et Al.
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 193 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The basic error of the Commission here is that it seemed to act on the assumption that the congressional prohibitions of railroad rate discriminations against water carriers were not applicable to such discriminations if accomplished by through rates. But this assumption would permit the destruction or curtailment of the advantages to shippers of cheap barge transportation whenever the transported goods were carried beyond the end of the barge line. Id. at 577 , 67 S.Ct. at 899 .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Carriage of ex-barge grain by eastern roads may conceivably entail more service and therefore greater-costs than are involved in carrying-ex-rail or ex-lake grain. If so, the eastern roads may, in certain circumstances, be justified in receiving an extra charge for that extra service wherever it is rendered. But the extra service must fit the extra charge and cannot justify lump sum rate increases which cut into the inherent advantages of cheaper barge transportation which Congress intended to guarantee to shippers.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Judicial review of the findings of fact and the expert judgments of the Interstate Commerce Commission . . . is extremely limited.”
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.