East Texas Motor Freight Lines, Inc. v. Frozen Food Express’s Empirical Analysis
1956
Citation profile
72 federal appellate · 22 district · 40 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 218 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2020 · most notably United States v. Storer Broadcasting Co. (1956), Frozen Food Express v. United States (1956)
72 federal appellate · 22 district · 40 state decisions — followed in 10 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. § 1253 · 28 U.S.C. § 1336 · 49 U.S.C. § 304 · 49 U.S.C. § 305 · 5 U.S.C. § 1009
Relies on United States v. Pierce Auto Freight Lines, Inc. · American Trucking Ass'ns v. United States Eastern Motor Exp · Social Security Board v. Nierotko · Federal Communications Commission v. Woko, Inc. · Swayne & Hoyt, Ltd. 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 218 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“having a distinctive name, character or use.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) Clause (6) of subsection (b) of section 203 of the Interstate Commerce Act, as amended, is amended by striking out the semicolon at the end thereof and inserting in lieu thereof a colon and the following: “Provided, That the words ‘property consisting of ordinary livestock, fish (including shell fish), or agricultural (including horticultural) commodities (not including manufactured products thereof)’ as used herein shall include property shown as ‘Exempt’ in the ‘Commodity List’ incorporated in ruling numbered 107, March 19, 1958, Bureau of Motor Carriers, Interstate Commerce Commission, but shall not include property shown therein as ‘Not exempt’: Provided further, however, That notwithstanding the preceding proviso the words ‘property consisting of ordinary livestock, fisli (including shell fish), or agricultural (including horticultural) commodities (not including manufactured products thereof)’ shall not be deemed to include frozen fruits, frozen berries, frozen vegetables, cocoa beans, coffee beans, bananas, or hemi), and wool imported from any foreign country, wool tops and noils, or wool waste (carded, spun, woven, or knitted), and shall be deemed to include cooked or uncooked (including breaded) fish or shell fish when frozen or fresh (but not including fish and shell fish which have been treated for preserving, such as canned, smoked, pickled, spiced, corned or kippered products)”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“"At some point processing and manufacturing will merge. But where the commodity retains a continuing substantial identity through the processing stage we cannot say that it has been `manufactured'..." [ 351 U.S. at 54 , 76 S.Ct. at 577 , 100 L.Ed. at 924 ]”
4 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.