Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad v. Illinois’s Empirical Analysis
1958
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 6 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 83 later decisions (15 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2021 · most notably Bowen v. American Hospital Assn. (1986), 7 Cal. 3d 331 - City of Los Angeles v. Public Utilities Commission (1972)
20 federal appellate · 6 district · 10 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
Relies on Houston East West Texas Railway Company v. United States · Libby, McNeill & Libby v. Alaska Industrial Board · Florida v. United States · Railroad Commission v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad · National Labor Relations Board v. F. W. Woolworth Co.
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 83 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The occasion for the exercise of the federal power asserted by § 13(4) is the necessity for effecting the required contribution by intrastate traffic of its proportionate share of the revenues necessary to pay a carrier’s operating costs and to yield a fair return. When intrastate revenues fall short of producing their fair proportionate share of required total revenues, they work an undue discrimination against interstate commerce, and the ICC may remove the discrimination by fixing intrastate rates high enough reasonably to protect interstate commerce. In determining whether an undue revenue discrimination against interstate commerce is caused by intrastate rates, the ICC may consider ‘among other things, the need, in the public interest, of adequate and efficient railway transportation service and the need of revenues sufficient to sustain such service,’ a standard written into 49 USC § 15a(2). No formal requirements are prescribed for the findings to be made by the ICC under § 13(4). Reasonable determinations suffice. But the justification for the exercise of this exceptional federal power to interfere with intrastate rates must be made definitely and clearly apparent.” (Citations omitted)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“not one of authority, but of its appropriate exercise[,] [t]he propriety of the exertion of the authority must be tested by its relation to the purpose of the [statutory] grant and with suitable regard to the principle that whenever the federal power is exerted within what would otherwise be the domain of state power, the justification of the exercise of the federal power must clearly appear.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““It is axiomatic that to know whether something is a fair proportionate part of something else, we must be told what the something else is.””
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.