Iowa, Chicago & Eastern Railroad v. Washington County’s Empirical Analysis
384 F.3d 557 · 2004
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently August 2022
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 7 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
Relies on CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Easterwood · Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v. Shanklin · Nashville St Ry v. Walters · Ag Supply Inc Farm Advantage Incs v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc · Erie Railroad v. Board of Public Utility Commissioners
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(b) The jurisdiction of the [STB] over— (1) transportation by rail carriers, and the remediés provided in this part with respect to rates, classifications, rules (including car service, interchange, and other operating rules), practices, routes, services,, and facilities of such carriers; and (2) the construction, acquisition, operation, abandonment, or discontinuance of spur, industrial, team, switching, or side tracks, or. facilities, even if the tracks are located, or intended to be located, entirely in one State, is exclusive. Except as otherwise provided in this part, the remedies provided under this part with respect to regulation of rail transportation are exclusive and preempt the remedies provided under Federal or State law.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“ICCTA repealed much of the economic regulation previously conducted by the ICC and by state railroad regulators working in conjunction with the ICC. In so doing, Congress recognized that continuing state regulation — of intrastate rail rates, for example — would “risk the balkanization and subversion of the Federal scheme of minimal regulation for this intrinsically interstate form of transportation.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“arguing that ‘rail safety’ for purposes of FRSA preemption does not include the highway safety risks created at rail crossings, that cramped reading of the FRSA is inconsistent with 49 U.S.C. § 20134 (a), with the federal rail crossing regulations discussed [by the Supreme Court] in Easterwood, and with common sense.” Id. The court noted that”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.