Texas Ry Co v. Gentry’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

111 federal appellate · 10 district · 61 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 216 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““There is no fixed standard in tbe law by wbieb a court is enabled to arbitrarily say in every case what conduct shall be considered reasonable and prudent, and what shall constitute ordinary care, under any and all circumstances. Tbe terms 'ordinary care,’ 'reasonable prudence/ and such like terms, as applied to the conduct and affairs of men, have a relative significance, and cannot be arbitrarily defined. What may be deemed ordinary care in one case, may under different surroundings and circumstances, be gross negligence. Tbe policy of tbe law has relegated tbe determination of such questions to tbe jury, under proper instructions from tbe court. It is their province to note tbe special circumstances and surroundings of each particular case, and then say whether tbe conduct of tbe parties in that ease was such as would be expected of reasonable, prudent men, under a similar state of affairs. When a given state of facts is such that reasonable men may fairly differ upon tbe question as to whether there was negligence or not, tbe determination of tbe matter is for tbe jury. It is only where the facts are such that all reasonable men must draw tbe same conclusion from them that tbe question of negligence is ever considered as one of law for tbe court.””

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Weiss v. Bethlehem Iron Co. · Klutt v. Philadelphia & R. Ry. Co.

2. ““The train has the preference and right of way. But it is hound to give due warning of its approach, so that the wagon may stop and allow it to pass, and to use every exertion to stop if the wagon is inevitably in the way. Such warning must be reasonable and timely. * * * On the other hand; those who are crossing a railroad track are bound to exercise ordinary care and diligence to ascertain whether a train is approaching. They have, indeed, the greatest incentives to caution, for their lives are' in imminent danger if collision happen; and hence it will not be presumed, without evidence, that they do not exercise proper care in a particular case.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. Spike

3. ““Whether he [the deceased] did or did not stop and look and listen for approaching trains the jury could not tell from the evidence. The presumption is that he did; and, if the court had given the special instructions asked, it would have been necessary to accompany it with the statement that there was no evidence upon the point, and that the law presumed that the deceased did look and listen for coming trains before crossing the track.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. Spike