Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 158 U.S. 1 - Roberts v. Northern Pac R Co

Roberts v. Northern Pac R Co’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

115
cited by 115 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
32
states following
August 2007
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 10 district · 81 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 115 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2007 · most notably United States v. Arthur Lynah (1903), Louisville Ry Co v. Louisville Trust Co Same (1899)

5 federal appellate · 10 district · 81 state decisions — followed in 32 states

370189019001910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 Cromwell v. County of Sac · Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. Myers · Holland v. Challen · Pensacola Telegraph Company v. Western Union Telegraph Company · Telegraph Company v. Texas

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

  1. ““It is well settled that where a railroad company, having the power of eminent domain, has entered into actual possession of land necessary for its corporate purposes, whether with or without the consent of the owner of such lands, a subsequent vendee of the latter takes the land subject to the burden of the railroad; and the right to payment from the railroad company if it entered by virtue of an agreement to pay, or to damages if the entry was unauthorized, belongs to the owner at the time the railroad company took possession.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “•‘So, too, it has been frequently held that if a landowner, knowing that a. railroad company has entered upon his land and is engaged in constructing its road without having complied with the statute, requiring either payment by agreement or proceedings to condemn, remains inactive, and permits them to go on and expend large sums in the work, be will be estopped from maintaining cither trespass or ejectment for the entry, and will be regarded as having acquiesced therein, and be restricted to a suit for damages.”.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““. . . The damages belong to the owner at the time of the taking, and do not pass to a grantee of the land under a deed made subsequent to that time, unless expressly conveyed therein . . .” (Wood on Railroads, Vol. 2, p. 994, and see authorities there cited.)”
    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.