INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION Et Al. v. OREGON-WASHINGTON RAILROAD & NAVIGATION CO. Et Al.

1933-01-09 · Supreme Court of the United States · United States

read the judgment

0What it rests on

5Relied on since

0Departed from

Relied on since

The judgments that cite this one. This is the answer that tells you the case is still alive.

19361 judgments19391 judgments19402 judgments19431 judgments

5 judgments have relied on it, across 1936–1943

first 1936 · last 1943 · busiest 1940 (2 judgments)

1943-02-08ASSOCIATED INDUSTRIES OF NEW YORK STATE, Inc., v. ICKES, Secretary of the Interior, Et Al.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 1940-12-16L. SINGER & SONS Et Al. v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO.Supreme Court of the United States 1940-03-25Federal Communications Commission v. Sanders Brothers Radio StationSupreme Court of the United States 1939-06-05COLEMAN Et Al. v. MILLER, SECRETARY OF THE SENATE OF THE STATE OF KANSAS, Et Al.Supreme Court of the United States 1936-02-17ASHWANDER Et Al. v. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY Et Al.Supreme Court of the United States

What it rests on

50 point outside the corpus. Read from the text, but no judgment held here answers to them. They are counted rather than hidden: this corpus is a slice, not the law.

Departed from

No judgment recorded a departure from this one.

Departure is not detected yet, and the gap is deliberate. Searching for the words the Court might use was measured on 1,019 judgments: "depart from" appears 100 times and most often means departing from the facts found by a domestic court; "overruled" appears 44 times, usually about a domestic judgment; "abandon" appears 123 times, most often as abandoned firearms. Tightened to require the Court itself as the subject, precision was still around 40%, the rest being a dissenting judge complaining, or a national supreme court departing from its own case-law. Telling a lawyer an authority is dead when it is alive is worse than saying nothing, so nothing is what this says until each candidate can be judged properly.

not characterised

Most citations carry no word at all. The Court does not always say what it is doing when it cites one of its own judgments, and where it stayed silent nothing is inferred here.