Gladson v. State of Minnesota’s Empirical Analysis
166 U.S. 427 · 1897
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 51 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 108 later decisions (15 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 1946 · most notably Mondou v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad (1912), Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. State of West Virginia State of Ohio (1923)
5 federal appellate · 51 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.
Relationships
Relies on Smith v. State of Alabama · Stone v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. · Hennington v. Georgia · New York Co v. People of the State of New York
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 108 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The principles of law which govern this case are familiar, and have been often affirmed by this court. A railroad corporation created by a state is for all purposes of local government a domestic corporation, and its railroad within the state is a matter of domestic concern. Even when its road connects, as most railroads do, with railroads in other states, the state which created the corporation may make all needful regulations of a police character for the government of the company while operating its road in that jurisdiction. It may prescribe the location and the plan of construction of the road, the rate of speed at which the trains shall run, and the places at which they shall stop, and may make any other reasonable regulations for their management, in order to secure the objects of the incorporation, and the safety, good order, convenience, and comfort of the passengers and of the public. All such regulations are strictly within the police power of the state. They are not in themselves regulations of interstate commerce; and it is only when they operate as such in the circumstances of their application, and conflict with the express or presumed will of Congress exerted upon the same subject, that they can be required to give way to the paramount authority of the Constitution of the United States. Stone v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 116 U. S. 307 , 333, 334, 6 Sup. Ct. 334 , 29 L. Ed. 636 ; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465 , 481, 482, 8 Sup. Ct. 564 , 31 L. Ed. 508 ; Hen”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“is u* * * statute of the state of Illinois, as construed and applied by the Supreme Court of the state, required a fast train, carrying interstate passengers and the United States mail from Chicago in the state of Illinois to places in other states south of the Ohio river, over an interstate highway established by authority of Congress, to delay the transportation of such passengers and mails by turning aside from the direct interstate route, and running to a station 3 1-2 miles away from a point on that route, and back again to the same point, and thus traveling 7 miles which formed no part of its course, before proceeding on its way; and, as the court observed, the question whether a statute which merely required interstate railroad trains, without going out of their course, to stop at county seats would be within the constitutional power of the state was not presented, and could not be decided, upon the record in that case. * * * But in the case at bar the train in question ran wholly within the state of Minnesota, and could have stopped at the county seat of, Pine county without deviating from its course; and the statute of Minnesota expressly provides that: ‘This act shall not apply to through railroad trains entering this state'from any other state, or to transcontinental trains of any railroad/ ””
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.