Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 389 U.S. 486 - 389 U.S. 486

389 U.S. 486’s Empirical Analysis

1968

Citation profile

399
cited by 399 later decisions
15
cited 15 times by the Supreme Court
6
states following
June 2017
most recently cited

150 federal appellate · 35 district · 17 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 399 later decisions (15 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2017 · most notably Blanchette v. Connecticut General Insurance Corporations (1974), Richards v. Jefferson County (1996)

150 federal appellate · 35 district · 17 state decisions

1640196819701980199020002010decided

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 28 U.S.C. § 1336 · 28 U.S.C. § 1398 · 28 U.S.C. § 1404 · 28 U.S.C. § 2112 · 28 U.S.C. § 2321 · 28 U.S.C. § 2341

Relies on Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation Same · Van Dusen v. Barrack · Hansberry v. Lee · Lawlor v. National Screen Service Corp. · Hoffman v. Blaski

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

  1. “While the rights of the bondholders are entitled to respect, they do not command Procrustean measures. They certainly do not dictate that rail operations vital to the Nation be jettisoned despite the availability of a feasible alternative. The public interest is not merely a pawn to be sacrificed for the strategic purposes or protection of a class of security holders whose interests may or may not be served by the destructive move.”
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““With respect to the merits of the merger, however, our task is limited. We do not inquire whether the merger satisfies our own conception of the public interest. Determination of the factors relevant to the public interest is entrusted by the law primarily to the Commission .... The judicial task is to determine whether the Commission has proceeded in accordance with the law and whether its findings and conclusions accord with the statutory standards. and are supported by substantial evidence.” 389 U.S. at 498 , 88 S.Ct. at 608 (1968).”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Competition is merely one consideration here. See Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. United States, 382 U.S. 154 , 86 S.Ct. 277 , 15 L.Ed.2d 223 (1965). This departure from the general and familiar standard of industrial regulation emphasizes the need for insistence that, before a rail merger is approved, there must be convincing evidence that it will serve the national interest and that terms are prescribed so that the congressional objective of a rail system serving the public more effectively and efficiently will be carried out. Obviously, not every merger or consolidation that may be agreed upon by private interests can pass the statutory tests.”
    2 later decisions 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.