Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 190 F.2d 917 - Stratton v. Southern Ry. Co.

Stratton v. Southern Ry. Co.’s Empirical Analysis

190 F.2d 917 · 1951

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
3
states following
June 1988
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently June 1988

1 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

201951196019701980decided

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 Railroad Company v. Grant · Burger v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co. · Sheridan v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad · Henderson v. St. Paul & Duluth Railroad · Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Papa

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

  1. “And we do not think that, under the circumstances of the case, it could be said that recovery should be denied as a matter of law because of contributory negligence. In the first place, whether the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence was a question for the jury in view of the evidence that the cars had been standing on the crossing for a longer period of time than allowed by the city ordinance, that it could not be seen from the crossing that an engine was attached to them and that it was customary for persons to pass between cars when the crossing was blocked in this way * * *. In the second place, even if the plaintiff was guilty of negligence in going between the cars, it was for the jury to say whether the negligence of the defendant in moving the cars suddenly and violently without signal or warning was not the sole proximate cause of his injury * * * in view of the evidence as to the length of time that cars had been blocking the crossing and the custom of persons to cross between them in such circumstances.”
    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.