Alleghany Corporation v. Breswick & Co Baker Weeks & Co’s Empirical Analysis
1957
Citation profile
65 federal appellate · 13 district · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 183 later decisions (12 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2017 · most notably Gilbertville Trucking Co. v. United States (1962), Nader v. Altermatt (1974)
65 federal appellate · 13 district · 12 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1253 · 28 U.S.C. § 1336 · 47 U.S.C. § 152
Relies on Rochester Telephone Corporation v. United States · Mississippi Valley Barge Line Co. v. United States · New York Central Securities Corp. v. United States · Swayne & Hoyt, Ltd. v. United States · Pittsburgh Ry Co 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 183 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The reference in § 5 to “interested parties,” like the reference in § 1(20) to “party in interest,” must be interpreted in accordance with the rules relevant to standing to become parties in proceedings under the Interstate Commerce Act. A hearing under that Act is not like a legislative hearing and “interest” is not equivalent to “concern.” It may not always be easy to apply in particular cases the usual formulation of the general principle governing such standing — e. g., “the complaint must show that plaintiff has, or represents others having, a legal right or interest that will be injuriously affected by the order.” Moffat Tunnel League v. United States, 289 U.S. 113 , 119, [ 53 S.Ct. 543 , 545, 77 L.Ed. 1069 .] In each case, the sufficiency of the “interest” in these situations must be determined with reference to the particular context in which the party seeks to assert its position.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“In deciding this type of issue, of course, the finding of the Commission that a given transaction does or does not constitute a significant increase in the power of one company over another is not to be overruled so long as “there is warrant in the record for the judgment of the expert body . . ..” Rochester Telephone Corp. v. United States, 307 U.S. 125 , 146, 59 S.Ct. 754 , 764, 83 L.Ed. 1147 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“under relevant notions of standing, the threatened [emphasis added] `dilution' of the equity of the common stockholders provided sufficient financial interest to give them standing.”
2 later decisions 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.