New York Co v. Estill’s Empirical Analysis
147 U.S. 591 · 1893
Citation profile
133 federal appellate · 25 district · 108 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 317 later decisions (5 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2020 · most notably Adams Express Co. v. Croninger (1913), St Johns Shipping Corporation v. S a Companhia Geral Commercial Do Rio De Janeiro (1923)
133 federal appellate · 25 district · 108 state decisions — followed in 23 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 Hart v. Pennsylvania Railroad · Ex parte Schollenberger · Southern Pac Co v. Denton · Lafayette Insurance v. French · Railway Company v. Whitton's Administrator
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 317 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The difference between the market value of the cattle in the condition in which they would have arrived but for the negligence of the defendant, and their market value in the condition in which, by reason of such negligence, they did arrive, constituted the proper rule of damages. It was not material whether the plaintiffs intended to keep the cattle upon their farms, for breeding purposes, or to sell them upon the market. The depreciation in value of the cattle was the same in either case.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The plaintiffs may have received on the sale of the cattle more or less than their market value. The defendant might have brought out evidence as to what the animals were sold for by the plaintiffs, to contradict the evidence as to their market value; but the plaintiffs could not bind the defendant iby the prices for which the animals were sold.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“it is not affirmed as to the amount of interest, or any part thereof, awarded by the verdict or judgment. That judgment is modified as to such interest, and the case is remanded to the court below, with a direction to enter a judgment for the plaintiffs for the [damages].. . .”
2 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.