Minneapolis St Louis Railway Company v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

99 federal appellate · 21 district · 18 state decisions

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 286 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[t]he evident purpose of § 10 of the Clayton Act ... to prohibit a corporation from abusing a carrier by palming off upon it securities,- supplies and other articles without competitive bidding and at excessive prices through overreaching by, or other misfeasance of, common directors, to the financial injury of the carrier and the consequent impairment of its ability to serve the public interest,”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Fischer v. CF & I Steel Corp. · Klinger v. Rose

2. ““Section 5(11) is both a more recent and a more specific expression of congressional policy than § 1 of the Sherman Act and § 7 of the Clayton Act, and in terms relieves the acquiring carrier, upon approval by the Commission of the acquisition, ‘from the operation of the antitrust laws. . . .’ Although § 5(11) does not authorize the Commission to ‘ignore’ the antitrust laws, McLean Trucking Co. v. United States, 321 U.S. 67, 80 , 64 S.Ct. 370 , 88 L.Ed. 544 , there can be ‘little doubt that the Commission is not to measure proposals for [acquisitions] by the standards of the antitrust laws.’ 321 U.S. at 85-86 , 64 S.Ct. 370 . The problem is one of accommodation of § 5(2) and the antitrust legislation. The Commission remains obligated to ‘estimate the scope and appraise the effects of the curtailment of competition which will result from the proposed [acquisition] and consider them along with the advantages of improved service [and other matters in the public interest] to determine whether the [acquisition] will assist in effectuating the over-all transportation policy.’ 321 U.S. at 87 , 64 S.Ct. 381 .” Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Co. v. United States, 361 U.S. 173 , 80 S.Ct. 229 , 4 L.Ed.2d 223 (1959).”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Navajo Freight Lines, Inc. · Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Railroad v. United States

3. ““Resolution of the conflicting considerations ‘is a complex task which requires extensive facilities, expert judgment and considerable knowledge of the transportation industry. Congress left that task to the Commission “to the end that the wisdom and experience of that Commission may be used not only in connection with this form of transportation, but in its coordination of all other forms.” 79 Cong.Rec. 12207. “The wisdom and experience of that commission,” not of the courts, must determine whether the proposed [acquisition] is “consistent with the public interest.” ’ ””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. United States · 369 F. Supp. 621 - Louisville and Nashville Railroad Co. v. United States