Camden & Suburban Railway Co. v. Stetson’s Empirical Analysis
177 U.S. 172 · 1900
Citation profile
34 federal appellate · 27 district · 21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 118 later decisions (9 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2014 · most notably Sibbach v. Wilson & Co. (1941), Pope v. United States (1967)
34 federal appellate · 27 district · 21 state decisions — followed in 12 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 Third Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Swift v. Tyson · Union Pac Ry Co v. Botsford · Fisk · The United States v. Thomas Reid and Edward Clements
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.
““On the 12th of May, 1896, the legislature of New Jersey passed and the governor approved an act [c. 202, p. 344] which reads as follows: “ ‘1. On or before the trial of any action brought to recover damages for injury to the person, the court before whom such action is pending, may, from time to time on application of any party therein, order and direct an examination of the person injured, as to the injury complained of, by a competent physician or physicians, surgeon or surgeons, in order to qualify the person or persons making such examination, to testify in the said cause as to the nature, extent and probable duration of the injury complained of; and the court may in such order direct and determine the time and place of such examination; provided, this act- shall not be construed to prevent any other person or physician from being called and examined as a witness as heretofore.’ * * * “Counsel for plaintiff refers in his argument to the opinion in the Botsford Case, where it is stated (at page 256 of 141 U. S., 11 S. Ct. 1002, 35 L. Ed. 739 ), that the question is one which is. not governed by the law or practice of the state in which the trial is had, but that it depends upon the power of the national courts under the Constitution and laws of the United States, and he argues therefrom that the state statute is immaterial, and can furnish no foundation for the exercise of the power by the Federal court. We do not dispute that if there were no law of the United States whi”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Howland v. Beck““(1) Is the above-recited statute of the state of New Jersey (Act May 12, 1896) applicable to an action to recover damages for injury to the person brought and tried in the circuit court of the United States for the district of New Jersey? (2) Ts said statute applicable to an action to recover damages for injury to the person brought and tried in the circuit court of the United States for the district of New Jersey, where the injury occurred in the state of New Jersey, and both the plaintiff and the defendant, at the time of the injury, were citizens of that state? (3) Had the circuit court the legal right or power to order a surgical examination of the plaintiff?””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““It is settled in this court that, no power to make such an order exists at common law; in other words, the court has no inherent power to make it”— citing the JBotsford Case.”
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.