Eddy v. Lafayette’s Empirical Analysis
163 U.S. 456 · 1896
Citation profile
41 federal appellate · 9 district · 33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 118 later decisions (10 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 1960 · most notably Miller v. Robertson (1924), Louisville Co v. Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co (1925)
41 federal appellate · 9 district · 33 state decisions — followed in 10 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
reviewedthe decision below (from Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals)
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 118 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““* * * And that instruction was assigned for-error in the Circuit Court of Appeals, whose refusal to hold the same to have been erroneous is complained of here. We think that part of the charge was plainly correct, and no error was committed by the Circuit Court of Appeals in sustaining it. As we read the instructions given by the trial court, the jury were not told that the action of the railway company in allowing combustible materials to accumulate upon its track and right of way which was liable to take fire from sparks and communicate it to adjacent property was negligence of itself, but was a faril from which, in the circumstances shown, the jury migh\ infer negligence.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The trial court and also the Circuit Court of. Appeals were of the! opinion that the third section of the Judiciary Act of March 3, 1887, c. 373. sec. 2, 24 Stat. 552 , 554, authorizing suits to be brought against receivers of railroads without 'Special leave of .the court by which they were appointed, was intended to place receivers upon the same plane with railroad companies, tooth as respects their liability to be .sued for acts done while operating a railroad and as respects the mode of service. We concur in that view. * * *””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Schaff v. Coyle““The court further instructs the jury tjiat evidence of a railway company allowing combustible material to accumulate on its track and right of way which is liable to take fire from sparks escaping from passing engines and communicate it to adjacent property, is sufficient to warrant the jury in imputing negligence to the company.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.