Gilbertville Trucking Co. v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
1962
Citation profile
62 federal appellate · 24 district · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 212 later decisions (18 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2001 · most notably United States v. Philadelphia National Bank (1963), Federal Trade Commission v. Dean Foods Co. (1966)
62 federal appellate · 24 district · 11 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 47 U.S.C. § 152 · 49 U.S.C. § 307 · 5 U.S.C. § 1007
Relies on Hecht Co. v. Bowles · United States v. Pierce Auto Freight Lines, Inc. · Rochester Telephone Corporation v. United States · International Ass'n of Machinists v. Duckworth · V Subversive Activities Control Board
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 212 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(s)ection 5(4) (section 5(5) under the Act as amended February 5, 1976, Pub.L. 94-210, Title IV, § 403(a), (b)(4)) is part of a comprehensive legislative scheme designed to place ownership, management, and operational control over common carriers within the regulatory jurisdiction of the Commission.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The public interest is concerned not only with improvements in transportation service, but also with the maintenance of respect for and the observance of the law. If the Frisco is permitted to retain the fruits of its unlawful conduct, and we sanction such conduct, which we consider to have been in flagrant disregard of the law, others will be encouraged to pursue a like course and to present a fait accompli for our approval. Obviously, such is not in accord with the intent of the statute; i. e., that we pass upon `proposed' acquisitions of control prior to their consummation, including the justness and reasonableness of the terms upon which such control is to be acquired. If the indicated practice were generally followed, our administration of the statute in the public interest would be seriously hindered, if not defeated.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““[E]ven an automatic rule is not necessarily arbitrary. ... § 5(4) is integral to the success of the regulatory scheme. To approve a merger in the face' of a § 5(4) violation may encourage others whose merger may not be consistent with the public interest to either present the Commission with a fait accompli or avoid its jurisdiction altogether. . . . [I]f such practices were encouraged, [the Commission’s] ‘administration of the statute in the public interest would be seriously hindered if not defeated’. . . . ” Id. at 128 .”
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.