Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 387 U.S. 326 - Chicago & North Western Railway Co. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.

Chicago & North Western Railway Co. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.’s Empirical Analysis

1967

Citation profile

50
cited by 50 later decisions
12
cited 12 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
April 2007
most recently cited

21 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 50 later decisions (12 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2007 · most notably Permian Basin Area Rate Cases (1968), City of Chicago v. Federal Power Commission (1971)

21 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions

20019671970198019902000decided

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. § 551 (Administrative Procedure Act of 1946)

Relies on Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States · United States v. L. A. Tucker Truck Lines, Inc. · Virginian Ry Co v. United States · Florida v. United States · Akron Ry Co v. United States

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

  1. ““And while the Commission has sometimes acted to offset passenger deficits in freight rate cases, the issues are quite different when, in a divisions case, it is argued that carriers in one part of the country should subsidize the passenger operations of carriers elsewhere. “If the Commission were to give controlling weight to passenger deficits in a divisions case, it might be appropriate to take more evidence on the issue and discuss it in greater depth than the Commission did here. But in light of the fact that, in this case, passenger deficits were of negligible relevance to the Commission’s decision to increase the Midwestern divisions, we find no errors in the Commission’s findings and procedure on this point that would justify setting aside its order.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[t]he premise of group proceedings . . . is that evidence pertaining to a group is typical of its individual members.”
    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.