United States v. Jones’s Empirical Analysis
336 U.S. 641 · 1949
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 10 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 148 later decisions (21 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2016 · most notably Melkonyan v. Sullivan (1991), United States v. Carlo Bianchi & Co. (1963)
26 federal appellate · 10 district · 9 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
Relies on Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp. · Texas Pacific Railway Company v. Abilene Cotton Oil Company · National Broadcasting Co. v. United States · Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line Co. · Rochester Telephone Corporation 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 148 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In each of these cases the claimant carrier recovered compensation in excess of that allowed it by the Postmaster General, but in each case the dispute centered around the meaning of a Commission rate order or the Commission’s power to enter the order made; [Italics in original.]””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“* * * review might be had of the carrier’s claim whenever it does not run in the teeth of the Commission’s, findings or order or seek revision of that order. In other words, the claim must be one consistent with the Commission’s order fixing the rate, but asserting underpayment by reason of some error of law in its application which would not require the Commission’s further consideration for fixing a new rate.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“district courts shall have jurisdiction `of cases brought to enjoin, set aside, annul or suspend in whole or in part any order of the Interstate Commerce Commission',”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. United States v. ICC
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.