Western Pacific Railroad v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18 federal appellate · 2 district ·

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

1. “In the absence of any settled construction of § 3(4), . . . its manifest purpose to deprive railroads of discretion to apportion economic advantage among competitors at a common interchange must be the basic guide to decision.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Bangor and Aroostook Railroad Company v. Interstate Commerce Commission, Maine Central Railroad Company, Intervenors. Maine Central Railroad Company v. United States of America, and Interstate Commerce Commission, Bangor and Aroostook Railroad Company, Intervenor. Robert W. Meserve and Benjamin H. Lacy, Trustees of the Property of Boston and Maine Corporation, Debtor v. United States of America, and Interstate Commerce Commission · Providence and Worcester Railroad Company v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Penn Central Corporation, Intervenors

2. ““Section 3(4) is applicable only to a narrower range of situations involving discrimination at a common interchange. Moreover, the remedy in § 3(4) situations need not entail the establishment of through routes, joint rates, or indeed any particular form of relief. All that is required is the elimination of discriminatory treatment. See Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville R. Co. v. United States, 270 U.S. 287, 292-293 [ 46 S.Ct. 226 , 70 L.Ed. 590 ] ; United States v. Illinois Central R. Co., 263 U.S. 515, 520-521 [ 44 S.Ct. 189 , 68 L.Ed. 417 ]. Finally, our holding does no more than to define the characteristics of a carrier eligible to complain. Relief is warranted only if it also appears that differential treatment is not justified by differences in operating conditions that substantially affect the allegedly discriminating carrier. See United States v. Illinois Central R. Co., supra [263 U.S.] at p. 521 [ 44 S.Ct. at p. 192 ]; Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe R. Co. v. United States, D.C., 218 F.Supp. 359, 360 .” (emphasis added).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Western Pacific Railroad v. United States

3. “that to qualify as a 'connecting line', in the absence of physical connection, a carrier need only show that it participates in an established through route, making connection at the point of common interchange, all of whose participants stand willing to cooperate in the arrangements necessary to eliminate the alleged discrimination.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State of New York v. United States