Baltimore Co v. Mackey’s Empirical Analysis
157 U.S. 72 · 1895
Citation profile
62 federal appellate · 10 district · 47 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 171 later decisions (19 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2007 · most notably Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath (1951), Patton v. Texas & Pacific Railway Co. (1901)
62 federal appellate · 10 district · 47 state decisions — followed in 20 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 Hough v. Railway Co. · Baltimore Co v. Baugh · Washington Co v. McDade · Moulor v. American Life Insurance · Delaware Co v. Converse
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 171 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A railroad company is hound to inspect the cars of another company used upon its road just as it would inspect its own cars; that it owes this duty as master, and is responsible for the consequences of such defects as would be disclosed or discovered by ordinary inpection; that when cars come in from another road which have defects visible or discernible, * * * it must either remedy such defects or refuse to take them.” Baltimore, etc., Ry. Co. v. Mackey, 157 U. S. 72 , 15 Sup. Ct. 491, 39 L. Ed. 624 . “This duty of examining foreign cars must obviously be performed before such cars are placed in trains upon the defendant’s road or furnished to its employés for transportation. When so furnished, the employés whose duty it is to manage the trains have a right to assume that, so far as ordinary care can accomplish it, the cars are equipped with safe and suitable appliances for the discharge of their duty, and that they are not to be exposed to risk or danger through the negligence of their employer.” Id.; 8 Enc. U. S. S. C. R. 286, n. 45.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It is not error to charge a jury that in estimating damages, they may take into consideration the age of the deceased, his health and his strength, his capacity to earn money as disclosed by the evidence, his family and who they are and what they consist of, and from all the facts and all the circumstances make up their minds how much the family would probably lose by his death.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The corporation is not to be held as guarantying or warranting the absolute safety, under all circumstances, or the perfection in all its parts, of the machinery or apparatus which may be provided for -the Use of employe's. Its duty in that respect to its employes is discharged when, but only when, its agents whose business it is to supply such instrumentalities exercise due care as well in their purchase originally as in keeping and maintaining thorn in such condition as to be reasonably and adequately safe for use by employes.””
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.