Brown v. CSX Transportation, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
18 F.3d 245 · 1994
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 2 district · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently January 2017 · most notably Lisa Hawkins v. Pepsico Incorporated American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina Legal Foundation Incorporated (2000), Dennis v. Columbia Colleton Medical Center, Inc. (2002)
25 federal appellate · 2 district · 13 state decisions
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
Applies 45 U.S.C. § 51 (Federal Employers' Liability Act)
Relies on Urie v. Thompson · Rogers v. Missouri Pacific Railroad · Brady v. Southern Railway Co. · Gallick v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad · Ferguson v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway 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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“if a party has been fully heard on an issue and there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for that party on that issue.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“whether a reasonable trier of fact could draw only one conclusion from the evidence.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage““[Reasonable foreseeability of harm,” we clarified in Gallick, is indeed “an essential ingredient of [FELA] negligence.” The jury, therefore, must be asked, initially: Did the carrier “fai[l] to observe that degree of care which people of ordinary prudence and sagacity would use under the same or similar circumstances[?]” In that regard, the jury may be told that “[the railroad’s] duties are measured by what is reasonably foreseeable under like circumstances.” Thus, “[i]f a person has no reasonable ground to anticipate that a particular condition ... would or might result in a mishap and injury, then the party is not required to do anything to correct [the] condition.” If negligence is proved, however, and is shown to have “played any part, even the slightest, in producing the injury,” then the carrier is answerable in damages even if “the extent of the [injury] or the manner in which it occurred” was not “[p]robable” or “foreseeable.””
2 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.