Illinois Cent. R. v. Leichner’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 federal appellate · 7 state decisions

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

1. “Controlling Louisiana decisions show that the law of that state exacts from the driver of an automobile who approaches a railroad crossing, where the view along the tracks from a direction from which a train may come is obstructed, the duty to stop, look, and listen before driving upon the crossing, or so near thereto as to be endangered by a passing train; that the greater the difficulty of seeing or hearing a train as he approaches the crossing, the greater the caution the law imposes upon him to use his senses of sight or hearing, one or both, when and where a reasonable and practicable use thereof would enable him to learn of the presence or absence of danger at the crossing; and that, though the operator of the railroad is chargeable with negligence which was a proximate cause of any injury to the traveler at the crossing, a right to recover damages for that injury is barred if the traveler's negligent failure to do all that care and prudence would indicate to avoid injury was a proximate contributing cause of the injury sustained. Perrin v. New Orleans Terminal Co., 140 La. 818 , 74 So. 160 ; Tucker v. Illinois Central R. Co., 141 La. 1096 , 76 So. 212 ; Callery v. Morgan's Louisiana, etc., Co., 139 La. 763 , 72 So. 222 ; Leopold v. Texas & P. R. Co., 144 La. 1000 , 81 So. 602 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 49 So. 2d 640 - Stelly v. Texas & NOR Co.