Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 494 U.S. 1 - Preseault v. Interstate Commerce Commission

Preseault v. Interstate Commerce Commission’s Empirical Analysis

1990

Citation profile

1,113
cited by 1,113 later decisions
28
cited 28 times by the Supreme Court
20
states following
March 2024
most recently cited

308 federal appellate · 67 district · 95 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 1,113 later decisions (28 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2024 · most notably United States v. Lopez (1995), Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994)

308 federal appellate · 67 district · 95 state decisions — followed in 20 states

40501990200020102020decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedPreseault v. Interstate Commerce Commission (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City · Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc. · Blanchette v. Connecticut General Insurance Corporations · Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn., Inc. · Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co.

Cited together with Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co. · Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los Angeles · Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City · Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City

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 1,113 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““... in furtherance of the national policy to preserve established railroad rights-of-way for future reactivation of rail service ... in the case of interim use of any established railroad rights-of-way ... such interim use shall not be treated, for purposes of any law or rule of law, as an abandonment of the use of such right-of-way for railroad purposes. If a State, political subdivision, or qualified private organization is prepared to assume full responsibility for management of such rights-of-way and for any legal liability arising out of such transfer or use, and for the payment of any and all taxes that may be levied or assessed against such rights-of-way, then the Commission shall impose such terms and conditions as a requirement of any transfer or conveyance for interim use in a manner consistent with this chapter, and shall not permit abandonment or discontinuance inconsistent or disruptive of such use” (emphasis added).”
    19 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “reasonable, certain and adequate provision for obtaining compensation”
    12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “); Hayfield Northern R. Co., Inc. v. Chicago and North Western Transp. Co., 467 U.S. 622 , 633, 104 S.Ct. 2610, 81 L.Ed.2d 527 (1984) (”
    6 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.