Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 175 F.1d 321 - McKell v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co.

McKell v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co.’s Empirical Analysis

175 F. 321 · 1910

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
July 1979
most recently cited

16 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 1979

16 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

1001910192019301940195019601970decided

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 Franklin Tel Co v. Harrison · Stonega Coal & Coke Co. v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad · Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Pennsylvania Co. · Mississippi River Logging Co. v. Robson · Robson v. Mississippi River Logging Co.

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

  1. ““Air. Thomas G. JIcKell, Ghillicotlic, Ohio. “Dear Sir: T am in receipt of your communication of the 28th. Of course, if yon build a railroad up Loup Creek and connect with us we shall be glad to do business with you, as we are with every branch that connects with us. If, however, you desire us to build it, in connection with the development that you may make in the coal business, I think we have about come to the following conclusion; that we will build a branch of reasonable cost for any parties who will furnish the right of way and who will agree to put in a coal plant of not less than a thousand tons of coal per day and coke ovens that shall use one-third of the same, and who will furnish the coal at the same price as the Pocahontas people do. We will agree then to take from them at this price whatever amount of coal they agree 1o furnish, not less than 100.000 tons a year; or, if they prefer to ship it themselves, we will give them the lowest rate made to any parties. We think that any new developments made should be upon the basis .of Pocahontas region, as it, is only by getting the coal at the same price it is furnished there that we can hope to compete. “I trust that you may be able to work on one or the other of these plans and develop your property. “Very truly yours, M. E. Ingalls, Pres.'’”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““Assuming there was an agreement here entered into for the building of the road, I am of the opinion that under the contract the defendant company agreed to make another contract with the party or parties who donated the right of way and constructed a coal plant of not less capacity than one thousand tons per day and coke ovens such as are mentioned in this letter of March 81, 1892, if such party or parties did not themselves elect to ship coal. It does not appear that such other contract was ever made.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““It is understood that you turn over to us the surveys which you haye had made and that you will give us the right of way for any extensions of this line that we may want to build, or any branches, where they go over your land."”
    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.