Pennsylvania Railroad Company v. William Hughes F a’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18 federal appellate · 6 district · 116 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 266 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In refusing to limit the recovery to the valuation agreed upon, did the state court deny to the company a right or privilege secured by the interstate commerce law? It may be assumed that under the broad power conferred upon •Congress over interstate commerce as defined in repeated decisions of this court, it would be lawful for that body to malte provision as to contracts for interstate carriage, permitting the carrier to limit its liability to a_ particular sum in consideration of lower freight rates for transportation. But upon examination of the terms of the law relied upon we fail to find any such provision therein. The sections of the interstate commerce law relied upon by the learned counsel for plaintiff in error (24 Stat. at B. 379-382, chap. 104, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, pp. 3154-3159 ; 25 Stat. at L., 855, c. 3S2, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 3158) provide for equal facilities to shippers for the interchange of traffic; for nondiscrimination in freight rates; for keeping schedules of rates open to public inspection; for posting the same in public places, with certain particulars as to charges, rules, and regulations; for the publication of joint tariff rates for continuous transportation over one or more lines, to be made public when directed by the Interstate Commerce Commission; against advances in joint tariff rates except after ten days’ notice to the commission; against reduction of joint tariff rates except after three days’ like notice; making it unlawful for ”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Piper · Rasher-Kingman-Herrin Co. v. Postal Telegraph-Cable Co.

2. ““It is true that this language was used of a statute of Iowa enacting a rule of obligation for common carriers in that state. But the principle recognized is that, in the absence of Congressional legislation upon the subject, d state may require a common carrier, although in the execution of a contract for interstate carriage, to use great care and diligence in the carrying of passengers and transportation of goods, and to be liable for the whole loss resulting from negligence in the discharge of its duties. “We can see no difference in the application of the principle based upon tlu manner in which the state requires this degree of care and responsibility, whether enacted into a statute or resulting from the rules of law enforced in the state courts. The state has a right to promote the welfare and safety of those within its jurisdiction by requiring common carriers to be responsible to the full measure of the loss resulting from their negligence, a contract to the contrary notwithstanding. This requirement in the case just cited is held. in the absence of Congressional action providing a different measure of liability when contracts, such as the one now before us, are made in relation to interstate carriage. Its pertinence to the case under consideration renders further discussion unnecessary.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Kelley v. Great Northern Ry. Co. · J. M. Pace Mule Co. v. Seaboard Air Line Railway Co.

3. “That any common carrier, railroad, or transportation company receiving property for transportation from a point in one State to a point in another State shall issue a receipt or bill of lading therefor and shall be liable to the lawful holder thereof for any loss, damage, or injury to such property caused by it or by any common carrier, railroad, or transportation company to which such property may be delivered or over whose line or lines such property may pass, and no contract, receipt, rule or regulation shall exempt such common carrier, railroad, or transportation company from the liability hereby imposed: Provided, That nothing in this section shall deprive any holder of such receipt or bill of lading of any remedy or right of action which he has under existing law.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Latta v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co. · Lichten v. Eastern Airlines, Inc.