Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 100 U.S. 153 - Hinckley v. Railroad Co.

Hinckley v. Railroad Co.’s Empirical Analysis

100 U.S. 153 · 1879

Citation profile

17
cited by 17 later decisions
3
cited 3 times by the Supreme Court
7
states following
April 1949
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 1949

2 federal appellate · 8 state decisions

6018791880189019001910192019301940decided

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 Paving Company v. Mulford

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

  1. ““The principal witnesses of appellant to sustain this exception are two gentlemen who were themselves receivers of other roads, and thought they rightfully received $900 in oncease, and $1,000 in the other, per month. Perhaps they were the best judges of the value of their own services; but such is not always the case, andas there is conflicting testimony, and as this is the first time we liave been called on to review the allowance made to railroad receivers by the circuit courts, we do not see that the economical administration of insolvent companies will be promoted, or that justice requires a higher standard of compensation than these courts generally give, to whose discretion the subject must be largely remitted.””
    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.