Hardy Salt Co. v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co.’s Empirical Analysis
501 F.2d 1156 · 1974
Citation profile
49 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 69 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2023 · most notably Mitchell v. King (1976), Pierce v. Cook & Co. (1975)
49 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 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
Relies on Erie Co v. Tompkins · Case v. Los Angeles Lumber Products Co. · Shoup Voting Machine Corp. v. Datamedia Computer Service, Inc. · United States v. Appalachian Electric Power Co. · The Daniel Ball
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 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“constitute navigable waters of the United States within the meaning of the acts of Congress, in contradistinction from the navigable waters of the States, when they form in their ordinary condition by themselves, or by uniting with other waters, a continued highway over which commerce is or may be carried on with other States or foreign countries in the customary modes in which such commerce is conducted by water.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“§ 9 — It shall not be lawful to construct or commence the construction of any bridge, dam, dike, or causeway over or in any port, roadstead, haven, harbor, canal, navigable river, or other navigable water of the United States until the consent of Congress to the building of such structures shall have been obtained and until the plans for the same shall have been submitted to and approved by the Chief of Engineers and by the Secretary of War [Secretary of Army]: Provided, That such structures may be built under authority of the legislature of a State across rivers and other waterways the navigable portions of which lie wholly within the limits of a single State, provided the location and plans thereof are submitted to and approved by the Chief of Engineers and by the Secretary of War [Army] before construction is commenced: And provided further, that when plans for any bridge or other structure have been approved by the Chief of Engineers and by the Secretary of War [Army], it shall not be lawful to deviate from such plans either before or after completion of the structure unless the modification of said plans has previously been submitted to and received the approval of the Chief of Engineers and of the Secretary of War. [Army]. § 10 — The creation of any obstruction not affirmatively authorized by Congress, to the navigable capacity of any of the waters of the United States is hereby prohibited; and it shall not be lawful to build or commence the building of any wharf, pier,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“a navigable water of the United States within the meaning of Sections 9, 10 and 13 of the Rivers and Harbors Act must be construed in line with the interpretation in The Daniel Ball, as contemplating such a body of water forming a continued highway over which commerce is or may be carried on with other states or foreign countries, by water.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Utah v. Marsh
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.