Chicago St Ry Co v. Ross’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 7 district · 109 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 135 later decisions — most recently June 1950 · most notably Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Laack (1892), Northern Pac Co v. Herbert
12 federal appellate · 7 district · 109 state decisions — followed in 37 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 Holden v. Fitchburg Railroad · Corcoran v. . Holbrook · Malone v. . Hathaway · Carroll v. Alston · Brickner v. . the New York Central Railroad Company
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 135 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The conductor of a railway train, who commands its movements, directs when it shall start, at what stations it shall stop, at what speed it shall run, and has the general management of it, and control over the persons employed upon it, represents the company, and therefore that, for injuries resulting from his negligent acts, the company is responsible. If such a conductor does not represent the company, then the train is operated without any representative of its owner.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““They commission him to exercise that dominion over the operations of the train which essentially pertains to the prerogatives of the owner; and in its exercise he stands in the place of the owner, and is in the discharge of a duty which the owner, as a man and a party to the contract of service, owes to those placed under him, and whose lives may depend on his fidelity. His will alone controls everything, and it is the will of the owner that his intelligence alone should be trusted for this purpose. This . service is not common to him and the hands placed under him. They have nothing to do with it. His duties and their duties are entirely separate and distinct, although both necessary to produce the result: It is his to command, and theirs to obey and execute. No service is common that does not admit a common participation; and no servants are fellow servants when one is placed in control over the other.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““There is, in our judgment, a clear distinction to be made in their relation to their common principal between servants of a corporation exercising no supervision over others engaged with them in the same employment and agents of the corporation clothed with the control and management of a distinct department, in which their duty is entirely that of direction and superintendence.””
1 later decision 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.