United States v. Union Pacific Railroad’s Empirical Analysis
1957
Citation profile
119 federal appellate · 45 district · 60 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 332 later decisions (19 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2023 · most notably Horton v. Liberty Mutual Insurance (1961), Andrus v. Charlestone Stone Products Co. (1978)
119 federal appellate · 45 district · 60 state decisions — followed in 12 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedUnited States v. Union Pacific Railroad (from Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1 (§ 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) · 30 U.S.C. § 121 · 30 U.S.C. § 22 · 30 U.S.C. § 81 · 30 U.S.C. § 83 · 43 U.S.C. § 291 · 43 U.S.C. § 729 · 43 U.S.C. § 934
Relies on Sinking-Fund Cases v. United States Central Pacific Railroad Company · Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Laramie Stock Yards Company · United States v. Ohio Power Co. · Great Northern Ry Co v. United States · Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. Townsend
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 332 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the established rule that land grants are construed favorably to the Government, that nothing passes except what is conveyed in clear language, and that if there are doubts they are resolved for the Government, not against it.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“all surface rights to the right of way and all rights incident to a use for railroad purposes.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“presents the question as to where, or at what place, and for %vhat purposes, the railway company may rightfully use timber or other material taken from the public lands adjacent to the line of its road.... The license to take timber is not, by the language of the act, limited to what is necessary for the construction of such portion of the road as is adjacent to the place from which the timber is taken, but extends to the construction of the entire “railroad.” The right is given to use the material “necessary for the construction of said railroad.” This language treats the railroad as an entirety, in the construction of which it was the purpose of congress to aid by conferring upon any railway company entitled to the benefits of the act the right to take timber necessary for such construction from the public lands adjacent to the line of the road.... As to the purposes for which the material may be used, it must be borne in mind that the benefits intended to be conferred by the act are not confined or limited to the roadbed or roadway, as the foundation upon which the superstructure is to rest, but are extended to the “railroad” as a completed or perfected structure. In addition to the right of way and the right to take timber for the purposes of this completed or entire structure called the “railroad,” there is granted by the act “also ground adjacent to such right of way for station buildings, depots, machine shops, side tracks, turnouts, and water tanks.... ” By this provi”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.