Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 112 U.S. 331 - Hart v. Pennsylvania Railroad

Hart v. Pennsylvania Railroad’s Empirical Analysis

112 U.S. 331 · 1884

Citation profile

737
cited by 737 later decisions
34
cited 34 times by the Supreme Court
43
states following
August 2018
most recently cited

185 federal appellate · 64 district · 306 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 737 later decisions (34 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2018 · most notably Adams Express Co. v. Croninger (1913), Liverpool & Great Western Steam Co. v. Phenix Insurance (1889)

185 federal appellate · 64 district · 306 state decisions — followed in 43 states

197018841890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Railroad Company v. Lockwood · The New Jersey Steam Navigation Company v. The Merchants' Bank of Boston · Bank of Kentucky v. Adams Express Co. · Railroad Company v. Fraloff

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

  1. “It is the law of this court that a common carrier may, by special contract, limit his common-law liability; but that he cannot stipulate for exemption from the consequences of his own negligence or that of his servants.”
    41 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Where a contract of carriage, signed by tlie shipper, is fairly made with a railroad company, agreeing on a valuation of the property carried, with t;he rate of freight based on the condition that the carrier assumes liability only to the extent of the agreed valuation, even in case of loss or damage by the negligence of tlie carrier, the contract will be upheld as a proper and lawful mode of securing a due proportion between tlie amount for which the carrier may be responsible and the freight he receives, and of protecting himself against extravagant and fanciful valuations.” (Syllabus.)”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. ““lor transportation, upon the following terms and conditions, which are admitted and accepted by me [the shipper] as just and reasonable: first. To pay all freight thereon to said company at the rate of ninety-four cents for 100 lbs. weight * * * on the condition that the carrier assumes a liability on the stock to the extent of the following valuation: If horses or mulos, not exceeding $200 each. 11 cattle or cows, not exceeding $75 each. If fat hogs or fat calves, not exceeding $15 each. If sheep, lambs, stock, hogs, or stock calves, not exceeding $5 each. If a chartered ear, on the stock and contents in samo $1,200 for the car load.””
    2 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.