United States v. Great Northern Ry Co’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

83 federal appellate · 24 district · 13 state decisions

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 223 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(i)t is our judicial function to apply statutes on the basis of what Congress has written, not what Congress might have written.”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Territory of Guam v. Olsen · 139 F. Supp. 327 - Rederiaktierbolaget v. Compania De Navegacion Anne, S. A.

2. “the amount of revenue required to pay their [the participating carriers’] respective operating expenses, taxes, and a fair return on their railway property held for and used in the service of transportation, and the importance to the public of the transportation services of such carriers * * * and any other fact or circumstance which would ordinarily, without regard to the mileage haul, entitle one carrier to a greater or less proportion than another carrier of the joint rate, fare, or charge.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. American Airlines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board · American Airlines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board

3. ““By section 15(4) we are forbidden to require any carrier, without its consent, to embrace in a through route substantially less than the entire length of its line between the termini of such through route, unless the carrier’s own line is unreasonably long or the route proposed is needed in order to provide adequate, and more efficient or more economic service. The defendant does not attempt to show that its own line between south Florida and Atlanta and Birmingham would not be unreasonably long as compared with the Seaboard-Coast Line route. We find that it would be unreasonably long as compared with the Seaboard-Coast Line route with interchange at Jacksonville. “It is clear that the Seaboard-Coast Line route through Jacksonville would be substantially superior to routes presently in use. In the prior report, the division found, at page 676: “We think, also, that the circumstances here present may reasonably be considered as falling within exception (b) of section 15(4), since the proposed route through Jacksonville is clearly needed in order to provide adequate, and more efficient and more economic, transportation. “That finding is fully warranted by the evidence, and it is affirmed. We further find that the route through Jacksonville is necessary and desirable in the public interest. “Moreover there is here involved not merely a choice between routes embracing long portions of the Seaboard’s line and another route embracing substantially less of that carrier’s line, but ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Seaboard Air Line Railroad v. United States