Schofield v. Chicago M St P Ry Co’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

144 federal appellate · 5 district · 73 state decisions

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

1. ““She was bound to listen and to look before attempting to cross the railroad track, in order to avoid an approaching train, and not to walk carelessly into the place of possible danger. Had she used her senses, she could not' have failed both to hear and to see the train which was coining. If she omitted to use them, and walked thoughtlessly upon the track, she was guilty of culpable negligence, and so far contributed to her Injuries as to deprive her of any right to complain of others.””

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. St. Louis & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Barker · Grand Trunk Ry. Co. of Canada v. Baird

2. ““It is the settled law of this court that, when the evidence given at the trial, with all the inferences which the jury could justifiably draw from it, is Insufficient to support a verdict for the plaintiff, so that such a verdictt, 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. Improvement Co. v. Munson, 14 Wall. 442 , 20 L. Ed. 867 ; Pleasants v. Fant, 22 Wall. 116 , 22 L. Ed. 780 ; Herbert v. Butler. 97 U. S. 319 , 24 L. Ed. 958 ; Bowditch v. Boston, 101 U. S. 16 , 25 L. Ed. 980 ; Griggs v. Houston, 104 U. S. 553 , 26 L. Ed. 840 ; Randall v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co., 109 U. S. 478 , 3 Sup. Ct. 322 , 27 L. Ed. 1003 ; Anderson County Com’rs v. Beal, 113 U. S. 227 , 5 Sup. Ct. 433 , 28 L. Ed. 966 ; Baylis v. Travellers’ Insurance Co., 113 U. S. 316 , 5 Sup. Ct. 494 , 28 L. Ed. 989 .””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Southern Pac. Co. v. Johnson · Russell v. Oregon Short Line R.

3. ““Applying the test that, if it would be the duty of the court, on. the plaintiff’s evidence, to set aside, as contrary lo the evidence, a verdict for the defendant, if given, the court had authority to direct a verdict for the defendant, it considered the case under the rules laid down in Continental Improvement Co. v. Stead, 95 U. S. 161 [ 24 L. Ed. 403 ], and especially in Railroad Co. v. Houston, 95 U. S. 697 [ 24 L. Ed. 542 ], and arrived at the conclusions of law. that neither the fact that the train was not a regular one, nor the fact of its high rate of speed, excused the plaintiff from! the duty of looking opt for a train; that the fact that it did not stop at the depot could avail the plaintiff only on the, view thal, hearing a whistle from it. as it was south of the depot, ho supposed it would stop there, aud so failed to look, but that, in such case, he would have been negligent, because it was not certain the train would stop at the depot, and he would have had warning that a train was approaching; that the neglect of the train to blow a whistle or ring a bell between the depot and the crossing did not relieve the plaintiff from the duty of looking back, at least as far as the depot, before going on the track; and that, in view of the duty incumbent on the plaintiff to look for a coming train before going so near to the track as to be unable to prevent a collision, and of the fact that he was at least 100 feet from the crossing when the train passed the depot, and”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Dernberger v. Baltimore & O. R. Co.