Pullman's Co v. Central Transp Co’s Empirical Analysis
171 U.S. 138 · 1898
Citation profile
148 federal appellate · 49 district · 55 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 374 later decisions (17 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2009 · most notably Ford Motor Co. v. National Labor Relations Board (1939), Johnson v. Southern Pacific Co. (1904)
148 federal appellate · 49 district · 55 state decisions — followed in 22 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 Central Transportation Co. v. Pullman's Palace Car Co. · Root v. Railway Co. · Brooks v. Martin · Logan County Nat Bank v. Townsend
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 374 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]n no way and through no channels, directly or indirectly, will the courts allow an action to be maintained for the recovery of property delivered under an illegal contract where, in order to maintain such recovery, it is necessary to have recourse to that contract. The right of recovery must rest upon a disaffirmance of the contract, and it is permitted only because of the desire of courts to do justice as far as possible to the party who has made payment or delivered property under a void agreement, and which in justice he ought to recover. But courts will not in such endeavor permit any recovery which will weaken the rule founded upon the principles of public policy already noticed. [ Pullman's Palace Car Co. v. Central Transp. Co., 171 U.S. 138, 151-52 , 18 S.Ct. 808, 814 , 43 L.Ed. 108, 114 (1898).]”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““No court will lend its aid to a man who founds his cause of action upon an immoral or an illegal act.” Pullman’s Car Co. v. Transportation Co., supra, 171 U. S. 151 , 18 Sup. Ct. 813 , 43 L. Ed. 108 .”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““From these cases we gather that there must be some plain, legal prejudice to defendant to authorize a denial of the motion to discontinue. Such prejudice must be other than the mere prospect of future litigation rendered possible by the discontinu anee. If the defendants have acquired some rights which might be lost or rendered less efficient by the discontinuance, then the court, in the exercise of a sound discretion, may deny the application.””
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.