Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 168 U.S. 445 - Stewart v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad

Stewart v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad’s Empirical Analysis

168 U.S. 445 · 1897

Citation profile

387
cited by 387 later decisions
24
cited 24 times by the Supreme Court
27
states following
August 2018
most recently cited

102 federal appellate · 67 district · 91 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 387 later decisions (24 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2018 · most notably Missouri Kansas Texas Pailway Company v. Sallie C Wulf (1913), Mecom v. Fitzsimmons Drilling Co. (1931)

102 federal appellate · 67 district · 91 state decisions — followed in 27 states

11101897190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Huntington v. Attrill · Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. Cox · Dennick v. Railroad Co. · State ex rel. Markley v. Baldwin

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

  1. “An action to recover damages for a tort is not local but transitory, and can as a general rule be maintained wherever the wrongdoer can be found.”
    12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““But neither the state in the one case nor the personal representative in the other has any pecuniary interest in the recovery. Each is simply a nominal plaintiff.””
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““Every such action shall be brought by and in the name of the personal representative of such deceased person.” Act Feb. 17, 1885, c. 126, 23 Stat. L. 307.”
    5 later decisions 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.