Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 678 F.2d 665 - Chicago and North Western Transportation Company v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission

Chicago and North Western Transportation Company v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission’s Empirical Analysis

678 F.2d 665 · 1982

Citation profile

35
cited by 35 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
June 2016
most recently cited

20 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 35 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2016 · most notably Hayfield Northern Railroad v. Chicago & North Western Transportation Co. (1984), Goldstick v. ICM Realty (1986)

20 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

2501982199020002010decided

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 Mathews v. Eldridge · United States v. Miller · United States v. Reynolds · New Haven Inclusion Cases · Brooks-Scanlon Co. v. Railroad Commission

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

  1. “[i]n no case ... set a price which is below the fair market value of the line (including ... all facilities on the line or portion necessary to provide effective transportation services).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “could ... wait till the line was abandoned and then reacquire it [by eminent domain] at its nonrail value--or even condemn it before abandonment ....”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[t]he purpose of [section 10905] would be frustrated if the Commission were required to consider the value of the [right-of-way] to the offeror”
    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.