Baltimore Co v. Baugh’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

346 federal appellate · 46 district · 142 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 705 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““All enter into the service of the same master, to further his interests in the one enterprise.. Each knows when entering into that service that there is some risk of injury through the negligence of other employés, and that risk, which he knows exists, he assumes in entering into the employment. * * ⅜ That the running of an engine by itself is not a separate branch of service seems perfectly clear. The fact is, all the locomotive engines of a railroad company are in the one department, — the operating department; and those employed in running them, whether as engineers or firemen, are engaged in a common employment, and are fellow servants.” Railroad Co. v. Baugh, 149 U. S. 384 , 389, 13 Sup. Ct. 914 , 37 L. Ed. 772 .”

   23 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hermann v. Port Blakely Mill Co. · Frost v. Oregon Short Line & U. N. Ry. Co.

2. ““Prima facie, all who enter into the employ of a single master are engaged in a common service and are fellow servants, and some other line of demarcation ilian of control must exist to destroy the relation of fellow servants. All enter into the service of .the same master to further his interests in the same enterprise. Each knows when entering into that service that there is some risk of injury through the negligence of other employés, and, that risk, which ho knows exists, he assumes in entering into the employment.””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Central Railroad v. Keegan · What Cheer Coal Co. v. Johnson

3. ““ * * * There is no question as to the power of the states to legislate and change the rules oi the common law in this respect as in others; but, in the absence of such legislation, the question is one determinable only by the general principles of that law. ITirtber than that, it is a question in which the Nation as a whole is interested. It enters into the commerce of the country. Commerce between the states is a matter of national regulation, and to establish it as such was one of the principal causes which led to the adoption of our Constitution. To-day the volume of mterstate commerce far exceeds the anticipation of those wrho framed the Constitution, and the main channels through which this interstate commerce passes are the railroads of the country. Congress has legislated in respect to this commerce not merely by the interstate commerce act and its amendments ( 24 Stat. 379 , c. 104 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3154]), but also by an act passed at the last session, requiring the use of automatic couplers on freight cars (Pub. Acts, 52d Cong., 2d Sess., c. 113). The lines of this very plaintiff in error extend into half a dozen or more states, and its trains are largely employed in interstate commerce. As it passes from state to stale, must the rights, obligations, and duties subsisting between it and its employes change at every state line? If to a train running from Baltimore to Chicago it should, within the limits of the state of Ohio, attach a car for a distance only ”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Murray v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. · Kelley v. Great Northern Ry. Co.