American Trucking Associations v. United States Railway Labor Executives' Association’s Empirical Analysis
1957
Citation profile
43 federal appellate · 15 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 108 later decisions (12 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 1990 · most notably American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. Frisco Transportation Co. (1958), Schaffer Transportation Co. v. United States (1957)
43 federal appellate · 15 district · 3 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from District of Columbia District Court)
Relationships
Applies 49 U.S.C. § 305 · 49 U.S.C. § 307
Relies on Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad · United States v. Rock Island Motor Transit Co. · United States v. Texas & Pacific Motor Transport Co. · Rock Island Motor Transit 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 108 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Section 207 [the licensing section] ... makes no reference to the phrase “service ... in its operations” used in § 5(2)(b), [the acquisitions section], nor is there any language even suggesting a mandatory limitation to service which is auxiliary or supplementary.... The legislative history of the Motor Carrier Act of 1935 gives no indication that § 213(a)(1), the predecessor of § 5(2)(b), was to be considered a limitation on applications under § 207... . In interpreting § 207, the Commission has accepted the policy of § 5(2)(b) as a guiding light, not as a rigid limitation. .. . We conclude, therefore, that the Congress did not intend the rigid requirement of § 5(2)(b) to be considered as a limitation on certificates issued under § 207.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ * * * the underlying policy of § 5(2) (b) must not be divorced from proceedings for new certificates under § 207. Indeed, the Commission must take ‘cognizance’ of the National Transportation Policy and apply the Act ‘as a whole.’ But, for Reasons we have stated, we do not believe that the Commission acts beyond its statutory authority when in the public interest it occasionally departs from the (restriction that proposed services be auxiliary and supplemental to train service in a certificate granted) in a § 207 proceeding.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““This policy [of imposing auxiliary and supplementary restrictions] was and is sound and should be relaxed only where the circumstances clearly establish (1) that the grant of authority has not resulted and probably will not result in the undue restraint of competition, and (2) that the public interest requires the proposed operation, which the authorized independent motor carriers have not furnished, except where it suited their convenience.” Id. n. 10.”
1 later decision 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.