American Trucking Ass'ns v. United States Eastern Motor Exp’s Empirical Analysis
1953
Citation profile
398 federal appellate · 76 district · 167 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 966 later decisions (55 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2024 · most notably Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe (1971), United States v. Raddatz (1980)
398 federal appellate · 76 district · 167 state decisions — followed in 26 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2321 · 49 U.S.C. § 301 · 49 U.S.C. § 308 · 5 U.S.C. § 1001
Relies on National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. · Phelps Dodge Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board · Ala Schechter Poultry Corporation v. United States · United States v. Darby · Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan
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 966 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“drafters of complex ratemaking statutes like the [Interstate Commerce Act] neither can nor do 'include specific consideration of every evil sought to be corrected.'”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(c) Exclusive possession and responsibilities — (1) The lease shall provide that the authorized carrier lessee shall have exclusive possession, control, and use of the equipment for the duration of the lease. The lease shall further provide that the authorized carrier lessee shall assume complete responsibility for the operation of the equipment for the duration of the lease. 6”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ * * * The claim of confiscation must be substantial, the import of the proffered evidence clear, and the inability to test the question before the Commission patent, in order to justify an oral hearing on the question in the courts. In the case at bar, appellants seek in substance to show that the outlawing of trip-leasing will affect their business; perhaps they might even be able to prove that some concerns would fail if they were unable in the future to resort to nonowned equipment for short periods. In this context, however, we do not think that a right to trial de novo is automatically established merely because the Commission denied a petition for rehearing which invoked constitutional principles. In the first place, there was in truth a multitude of evidence before the Commission on the importance of trip-leasing to some concerns. Moreover, we are clear that appellants had an opportunity to introduce this very evidence in the agency proceedings, for it required no great prescience, in view of the notice of the hearings published by the Commission, to know that they would concern the importance and desirability of the very practices appellants seek to protect. “ ‘Confiscatory’ is not a magic word. Whether it should open the door to further proceedings depends on the nature of the order attacked. We think a claim of rate confiscation, which was the concern of the cases just cited, stands on a fundamentally different footing from that made in the instant case.” 344 U.S.”
3 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.