Aerkfetz v. Humphreys’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

161 federal appellate · 2 district · 183 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 389 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Under such circumstances, what negligence can be attributed to the parties in control of the train, or the management of the yard? They could not have moved the train at any slower rate of speed. They were not bound to assume that any employs familiar with the manner of doing business would be wholly indifferent to the going and coming of the cars. There were no strangers whose presence was to be guarded against. The ringing of bells and the sounding of whistles on trains going and coming and switch engines moving forward and backward would have simply tended to confusion. * * * Tt cannot be that, under these circumstances, the defendants were compelled to send some man in front of the cars for the mere sake of giving notice to employés who had all the time knowledge of what was to be expected. We see in the facts as disclosed no negligence on the part of the defendant.””

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Northern Pac. R. v. Krohne · Connelley v. Pennsylvania R.

2. ““For a quarter of a mile east of him there was no obstruction, and by ordinary attention he could have observed the approaching cars. He knew that the SAvitch engine was busy moAdng cars and making up trains, and that any minute cars were likely to be moved along the track upon which he was working. * * * There could have been no thought or expectation on the part of the ■engineer or of any other employee that he, thus at work in a place of danger, Avould pay no attention to his OAvn safety.” The court further said: “If negligence could be imputed to them, surely the plaintiff, by his negligent inattention, contributed directly to the injury.” In that case contributory negligence was a bar to recovery. Moreover, in station yards persons repairing tracks know that the engines are switching cars constantly, and are required under the rules of the company to look out for themselves and keep out of the way of engines which they know will come on the tracks.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Toledo, St. L. & W. R. v. Bartley · The Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v. Brock

3. “‘ ‘ It cannot be that, under these circumstapces, the defendants were compelled to send some man in front of the cars for the mere sake of giving notice to employés who had all the time knowledge of what was to be expected. We see in the facts as disclosed no negligence on the part of the defendants, and if, by any means, negligence could be imputed to them, surely the plaintiff, by his negligent inattention, contributed directly to the injury.” Aerkfetz v. Humphreys, 145 U. S. 418 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Rosney v. Erie R. Co. · Carlson v. Cincinnati, Saginaw & Mackinaw Railroad