Grand Trunk Ry Co of Canada v. Ives’s Empirical Analysis
144 U.S. 408 · 1892
Citation profile
724 federal appellate · 18 district · 575 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,461 later decisions (34 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2011 · most notably Tiller v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad (1943), Kepner v. United States (1904)
724 federal appellate · 18 district · 575 state decisions — followed in 45 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 Inland & Seaboard Coasting Co. v. Tolson · Delaware Co v. Converse · Railroad Company v. Houston · Bucher v. Cheshire Railroad
Cited together with Inland & Seaboard Coasting Co. v. Tolson · Delaware Co v. Converse · Baltimore Co v. Griffith · Texas Ry Co v. Gentry · Chunn v. City & Suburban Railway
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 1,461 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is only where the facts are such that all reasonable men must draw the same conclusions from them that the question of negligence is ever considered one of law for the court.””
58 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Although the defendant’s negligence' may have been the primary canse of the injury complained of, yet an action for such injury cannot be maintained if the proximate and immediate cause of the injury can be traced to the want of ordinary care and caution in the person injured, subject to this qualification, which has grown up m recent years (having been first enunciated in Davies v. Mann, 10 M. & W. 546), that the coniributory negligence of the party-injured will not defeat the action, if it be shown that the defendant might, by the exercise of reasonable cure and prudence, have avoided the consequences of the injured party’s negligence.””
15 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It must be first shown that such crossing is more than ordinarily hazardous; as, for instance, that it is in a thickly populated portion of a town or city; or, that the view of the track is obstructed either by the company itself or by other objects proper in themselves; or, that the crossing is a much traveled one 4 and the noise of approaching trains is rendered indistinct and the ordinary signals difficult to be heard by reason of bustle and confusion incident to railway or other business; or by reason of some such like cause; * * *.”
12 later decisions 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.