Fritsch v. Interstate Commerce Commission’s Empirical Analysis
59 F.3d 248 · 1995
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently July 2016 · most notably Barclay v. United States (2006), Eldridge v. City of Greenwood (1998)
26 federal appellate · 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
Applies 16 U.S.C. § 1241 (Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail Act) · 16 U.S.C. § 1247 · 28 U.S.C. § 1491 · 28 U.S.C. § 2344 · 49 U.S.C. § 10906
Relies on Preseault v. Interstate Commerce Commission · Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Such is the case here, where [the railroad] only possessed an easement on the property belonging to private landowners. Once [the railroad] consummated abandonment, [the railroad’s] property interests reverted to the landowners. These interests were thus extinguished as a matter of law. Certainly neither [the ICC regulation involved] nor the Trails Act can create a new property interest if abandonment has already occurred. ****** Because we so hold, we need not decide whether Indiana State property law would dictate that a change of use in an easement would constitute an additional taking of the property of the fee owner, nor whether such additional taking would be compensa-ble under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.... Those questions are left for another day. Sufficient unto this day is the decision that the easement holder had abandoned its interest and the fee owners prevailed.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“namely, their claim that they were denied the opportunity to submit protests against CSX's petition to reopen. Id. at 251. Therefore, the denial of their petition was reviewable under the exception in BLE for petitions raising new matter. See id. at 252. 24 The rationale for our decision in Fritsch is clearly inapplicable here: if review of the ICC's denial of the landowners' petition were not available as new material under BLE, then a party”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Once a carrier `abandons' a rail line pursuant to authority granted by the [Board], the line is no longer part of the national transportation system, and although the [Board] is empowered to impose conditions on abandonments... as a general proposition [its] jurisdiction terminates.”
1 later decision 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.