Interstate Commerce Commission v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad’s Empirical Analysis
1963
Citation profile
32 federal appellate · 13 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 73 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 1984 · most notably Clipper Exxpress v. Rocky Mountain Motor Tariff Bureau (1982), Margaret S. Rodriguez v. Donald E. Ritchey (1977)
32 federal appellate · 13 district ·
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
Relies on Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation · Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States · Gilbertville Trucking Co. v. United States · United States v. Capital Transit 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 73 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If there is one fact that stands out in bold relief in the legislative history of § 15(a)(3), it is that Congress did not regard the setting of a rate at a particular level as constituting an unfair or destructive competitive practice simply because that rate would divert some or all of the traffic from a competing mode. . . . Section 15(a) (3) in other words, made it clear that something more than even hard competition must be shown before a particular rate can be deemed unfair or destructive, (emphasis in the original) .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Rates of a carrier shall not be held up to a particular level to protect the traffic of ainy other mode of transportation, giving due consideration to the objectives of the national transportation policy----”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is hereby declared to be the national transportation policy of the Congress to provide for fair and impartial regulation of all modes of transportation subject to the provisions of this Act, so administered as to recognize and preserve the inherent advantages of each; to promote safe, adequate, economical, and efficient service and foster sound economic conditions in transportation and among the several carriers; to encourage the establishment and maintenance of reasonable charges for transportation services, without unjust discriminations, undue preferences or advantages, or unfair or destructive competitive practices; to cooperate with the several States and the duly authorized officials thereof; and to encourage fair wages and equitable working conditions; — all to the end of developing, coordinating, and preserving a national transportation system by water, highway, and rail, as well as other means, adequate to meet the needs of the commerce of the United States, of the Postal Service, and of the national defense. All of the provisions of this Act shall be administered and enforced with a view to carrying out the above declaration of policy.”
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.