Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 426 U.S. 500 - United States v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co.

United States v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co.’s Empirical Analysis

1976

Citation profile

156
cited by 156 later decisions
14
cited 14 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
July 1994
most recently cited

60 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 156 later decisions (14 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 1994 · most notably Trans Alaska Pipeline Rate Cases (1978), Southern Railway Company v. Seaboard Allied Milling Corp (1979)

60 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions

880197619801990decided

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. § 1253

Relies on United States v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures (SCRAP) · Arrow Transportation Company v. Southern Railway Company · National Association for Advancement of Colored People v. Federal Power Commission · Barrett v. United States · United States v. Louisiana

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

  1. “legitimate, reasonable, and direct adjunct to the (agency's) explicit statutory power....”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The Congress has charged the Commission with the task of determining whether the rates proposed by the carriers are 'just and reasonable.' 49 U.S.C. § 1(5).”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[w]henever there shall be filed . . . any schedule stating a new individual or joint rate, . . . the Commission . . . may . . . suspend the operation of such schedule”
    2 later decisions 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.