Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company v. Lennen’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Because the revision was not intended to change the law, we must resolve any substantive conflicts between the original language of § 306 and the language in § 11503 in favor of the original language.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Rives v. Interstate Commerce Commission · Burlington Northern Railroad Company v. Department of Revenue of State of Washington

2. “A median has no significance if the items on the continuum are not alike in some relevant way. See International Association of Assessing Officers Assessment Standards Committee, Standard on Assessment Ratio Studies, § 3.10.3 (1980). “Parcel" as plaintiffs use it in this case is not a unit measurement. In plaintiffs’ calculations a small farm and an entire public utility each are one “parcel.” The median “parcel” seems an even more inappropriate measure in a case such as this where all “parcels” of personal property would also have to be included in the assessment ratio for “all other commercial and industrial property.” When, as here, categories of property that are subject to different methods of appraisal must be factored together to produce the assessment ratio for “all other commercial and industrial property,” each category should be factored in proportion to its share of the total true market value of all such property.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Southern Railway Co. v. Stair · Southern Railway Co. v. State Board of Equalization

3. “in section 11503a(c). Because Congress was aware that such studies considered only real property, their argument goes, Congress also would have had to suggest the preferred method of proving the assessment ratio for other commercial and industrial personal property if only like types of property were to be compared. Instead, the MCA provides that if the sales assessment ratio study is not deemed sufficient proof of the assessment ratio for other commercial and industrial property, the proper comparison then is to the assessment ratio of”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Abf Freight System, Inc., Builders Transportation Company, Campbell Sixty-Six, Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Eagle Motor Lines, Inc., Fb Truck Line Co., East Texas Motor Freight Lines, Inc., Gordons Transports, Inc., Lee Way Motor Freight, Inc., Miller Transporters, Inc., North American Van Lines, Pacific Intermountain Express, Roadway Express, Inc., Ruan Transport Corporation, Ryder Truck Lines, Inc., Spector-Red Ball, Inc., Time D.C., Inc., Transcon Lines, Wooten Transports, Inc. And Yellow Freight Systems, Inc. v. Tax Division of the Arkansas Public Service Commission and James Poe, in His Capacity as Director of the Tax Division of the Arkansas Public Service Commission and Charles Ragland, in His Capacity as Commissioner of Revenue for the State of Arkansas, Abf Freight System, Inc., Builders Transportation Company, Campbell Sixty-Six, Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Eagle Motor Lines, Inc., Fb Truck Line Co., East Texas Motor Freight Lines, Inc., Gordons Transports, Inc., Lee Way Motor Freight, Inc., Miller Transporters, Inc., North American Van Lines, Pacific Intermountain Express, Roadway Express, Inc., Ruan Transport Corporation, Ryder Truck Lines, Inc., Spector-Red Ball, Inc., Time D.C., Inc., Transcon Lines, Wooten Transports, Inc. And Yellow Freight Systems, Inc., B.J. McAdams Inc. And Southern Trucking Corporation, Intervenor/appellants v. Tax Division of the Arkansas Public Service Commission and James Poe, in His Capacity as Director of the Tax Division of the Arkansas Public Service Commission and Charles Ragland, in His Capacity as Commissioner of Revenue for the State of Arkansas · Abf Freight System Inc Fb Time Dc v. Tax Division of Arkansas Public Service Commission Abf Freight System Inc Fb Time Dc Bj