Randall v. Baltimore O R’s Empirical Analysis
109 U.S. 478 · 1883
Citation profile
144 federal appellate · 3 district · 98 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 409 later decisions (59 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2016 · most notably Sparf v. United States (1895), New York Central Railroad Company v. Sarah White (1917)
144 federal appellate · 3 district · 98 state decisions — followed in 33 states
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 Hough v. Railway Co. · Pleasants v. Fant · Wabash Ry Co v. McDaniels · Bowditch v. Boston
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 409 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““If a brakeman on one train of a railroad company is the fellow-servant of the employees in charge of, or operating another train of the same company, on the same road, the declaration was demurrable. “There is some diversity of authority as to who are fellow-servants, within the meaning of the rule which exempts the master or employer from liability to those engaged in his employment, for injuries suffered by them, as the result of the negligence or misconduct of other servants employed by him and engaged in the same common business; but subjection to control and direction by the same common master, in the same common pursuit, furnishes the true test of coservice. When servants are employed and paid by the same master, and their duties are such as to bring them into such a relation that the negligence of the one in doing his work may injure the other in the performance of his, then they are engaged in the same common business, and, being subject to the control of the same master, they are fellow-servants, within the generally accepted meaning of the rule, no matter how different the grades of service or compensation may be, or how diverse or distinct their duties may be. 3 Wood’s Railway Law, 1494 et seq. . “And, when the relation of fellow-servants is established, there can be no recovery from the common master or employer by one of them for an injury occasioned to him through the negligence or misconduct of his co-employee. In order to render the master liable in such case”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage““A railroad yard, where trains are made up, necessarily has a great number of tracks and switches close to one another; and rfny one who enters the service of a railroad corporation, connected with the moving of trains, assumes the risk of that condition of things.””
6 later decisions quote this exact passage““It is the settled law of this court that when the evidence given at the trial, with all inferences that the jury could justifiably draw from It, Is Insufficient to support a verdict for the plaintiff, so that such a verdict, if returned, must be set aside, the court is not bound to submit the case to the jury, but may direct a verdict for the defendant.” Pleasants v. Fant, 22 Wall. 116 , 22 L. Ed. 780 ; Griggs v. Houston, 104 U. S. 453 , 26 L. Ed. 840 ; Herbert v. Butler, 97 U. S. 319 , 24 L. Ed. 958 ; Bowditch v. Boston, 101 U. S. 16 , 25 L. Ed. 980 .”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.