Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 152 U.S. 59 - Prosser v. Northern Pac R Co

Prosser v. Northern Pac R Co’s Empirical Analysis

152 U.S. 59 · 1894

Citation profile

31
cited by 31 later decisions
7
cited 7 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
January 1971
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 31 later decisions (7 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 1971 · most notably Philadelphia Co. v. Stimson (1912), Bauman v. Ross (1897)

6 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 state decisions

100189419001910192019301940195019601970decided

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 Atlee v. Packet Co. · Weber v. The Board of Harbor Commissioners · People v. New York & Staten Island Ferry Co. · In Matter of N.Y.C. and H.R.R.R. Co. · Matter of Staten Island Rapid Transit Co.

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

  1. ““It may he admitted that the Congress of the United States, while the present State of Washington was a Territory, had the power, in chartering a corporation to construct and maintain a railroad from Lake Superior to the Pacific Coast, to grant to the corporation such title or rights in lands below high water mark of tide waters of the Territory, as might be necessary or convenient for the building, maintenance, use and enjoyment of such structures as might be required for commerce and transportation on the railroad and by sea, and for transferring goods and passengers between the railroad and sea-going vessels. Shively v. Bowlby, just decided, ante 1; In re New York Central & Hudson River Railroad, 77 N. Y. 248 ; In re Staten Island Rapid Transit Co., 103 N. Y. 251 .””
    1 later decision 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.