Northern Pac Co v. Peterson’s Empirical Analysis
162 U.S. 346 · 1896
Citation profile
94 federal appellate · 8 district · 64 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 213 later decisions (14 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 1929 · most notably The Osceola (1903), Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. v. Schwyhart (1913)
94 federal appellate · 8 district · 64 state decisions — followed in 21 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedWoods v. Lindvall (from Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Baltimore Co v. Baugh · MINNEAPOLIS AND ST. LOUIS RAILWAY COMPANY v. Nelson · Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. v. Ross · Northern Pacific Railroad v. Hambly
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 213 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““He owes the duty to provide snclx servant with a reasonably safe place to work in, having reference to the character of the employment in which •the servant is engaged. * * * If, instead of personally performing these ..obligations, the master engages another to do them for him, he is liable for .the neglect of that other, which in such case is not the neglect of a fellow-.servant, no matter what his position as to other matters, but is the neglect, of the master to do those things which it is the duty of the master to perform as"sueh.””
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““That in order to form an exception to the general rule of nonliability the person whose neglect caused the injury must be ‘one who was clothed with the control and management of a distinct department, and not a mere separate piece of work in one of the branches of service in the department.’ This distinction is a plain one, and not subject to any great embarrassment in determining the fact in any particular case.””
5 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.