Illinois Central Railroad Company v. Norfolk and Western Railway Company Calumet Harbor Terminals Inc’s Empirical Analysis
1966
Citation profile
167 federal appellate · 104 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 574 later decisions (13 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2025 · most notably Chicago & North Western Transportation Co. v. Kalo Brick & Tile Co. (1981), 389 U.S. 486 (1968)
167 federal appellate · 104 district · 5 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 5 U.S.C. § 1009
Relies on Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board · Consolo v. Federal Maritime Commission · National Labor Relations Board v. Columbian Enameling & Stamping Co. · Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway 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 574 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“enough to justify, if the trial were to a jury, a refusal to direct a verdict when the conclusion sought to be drawn from it is one of fact for the jury.”
24 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"As we said in Consolo v. Federal Maritime Comm'n., 383 U.S. 607, 620 , 86 S.Ct. 1018, 1026 , 16 L.Ed.2d 131 (1966), `the possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent an administrative agency's finding from being supported by substantial evidence'. It is not for the court to strike down conclusions that are reasonably drawn from the evidence and findings in the case. Its duty is to determine whether the evidence supporting the Commission's findings is substantial, Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board, 340 U.S. 474 (1951) 71 S.Ct. 456 , 95 L.Ed. 456 ." Illinois Central R. Co. v. Norfolk & Western Ry. Co., 385 U.S. 57 , 87 S.Ct. 255 , 17 L.Ed.2d 162 (November 14, 1966).”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“setting aside a Board decision when [we] cannot conscientiously find that the evidence supporting the decision is substantial, when viewed in the light that the record in its entirety furnishes, including the body of evidence opposed to the Board's view.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.