Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Osborne’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions

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

1. ““Where two companies, owning two connecting lines of road, unite in a joint tariff, they form, for the connected roads, practically a new and independent line. Neither company is bound to adjust its own '.local tariff to suit the other, nor compellable to make a joint tariff with it. It may insist upon charging its local rates for all transportation over its line. If, therefore, the two companies by agreement make a joint tariff over their lines, or any part of their lines, such joint tariff is not the basis by which the reasonableness of the local tariff of either line is determined. To illustrate; On the defendant’s road the distance from Turner to Chicago is 30 miles; on the Lake Shore line, from Chicago to Cleveland is 200 or 300 miles. Defendant company may charge 15 cents for transporting grain the 30 miles from Turner to Chicago, providing that it be in fact only a reasonable charge for the services, although the Lake Shore Company charges no more for transporting it from Chicago to Cleveland; and the fact that the rate on each line is 10 cents for the distance named will not prevent the two companies from making a joint tariff for grain shipped from Turner to Cleveland of 12 cents, — less than the local tariff of either. We do not mean to intimate that the two companies, or a joint line, can make a tariff from Turner to Cleveland higher than from Turner to Buffalo, or for any other intermediate points between Cleveland and Buffalo; for when the two companies, by their”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Parsons v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. · United States v. Mellen

2. ““It shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to the provisions of this act to charge or receive any greater compensation, in the aggregate, for the transportation of passengers or of liws kind of property, under substantially similar circumstances and conditions, for a shorter than for a longer distance over the same line, in the same direction; the shorter being included within the longer distance. ””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Interstate Commerce Commission v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co. · United States v. Mellen

3. ““Tbe defendant owns and operates a railroad from Missouri Valley, a town on tbe western border of Iowa, to Chicago', Illinois. Scranton is a town in Iowa, on tbe line of this road, eiglity-eigbt miles east of Missouri Valley, and therefore so much nearer Chicago. Tbe Fremont, Elkhorn & Missouri Valley Railroad Company owns a railroad running east and west through Nebraska, and connecting with the defendant’s road at the town of Missouri Valley. Blair, Nebraska, is a point on that road, thirteen miles west of Missouri Valley. While the Fremont, Blkhom & Missouri Valley Railroad Company is an independent corporation, a majority of its stock belongs to ihe defendant company, and thus tbe defendant company controls its operations. During the month of January, 1888, there was in force' a local tariff of rates charged on the defendant’s road. This local tariff was duly published in Scranton. In accordance with it, the rate from Scranton to Chicago, on corn, was 18 cents per 100 pounds. All shippers shipping simply to Chicago paid that rate. The plaintiff, among others, made sundry shipments, and was charged and paid such sum. There was, so far as appears, absolute uniformity of rate as to all such local shipments. At the same time the tariff on com shipped through from Blair, Nebraska, to Now York City was 3Si& cents; to Boston, Philadelphia, and Baltimore, sums slightly aboye and below this figure. Tliis through rate was made up in this way: By agreement between the defendant and ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Interstate Commerce Commission v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co.