United States Ex Rel. Louisville Cement Company v. Interstate Commerce Commission

1918-04-29 · Supreme Court of the United States · United States

read the judgment

1What it rests on

4Relied 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.

19241 judgments19251 judgments8 years silent19331 judgments4 years silent19371 judgments

4 judgments have relied on it, across 1924–1937

first 1924 · last 1937 · busiest 1924 (1 judgments)

1937-03-29VIRGINIAN RAILWAY CO. v. SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 40, RAILWAY EMPLOYEES DEPARTMENT OF THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR, Et Al.Supreme Court of the United States 1933-11-20Butte, Anaconda & Pacific Ry. Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States 1925-03-02Work, Secretary of the Interior v. United States Ex Rel. RivesSupreme Court of the United States 1924-03-03The Chicago Junction CaseSupreme Court of the United States

What it rests on

1912-04-29Interstate Commerce Commission v. United States of America Ex Rel. Humboldt Steamship CompanySupreme Court of the United States

12 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.