Choctaw, Oklahoma & Gulf R. R. v. McDade’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

196 federal appellate · 11 district · 218 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 495 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““An employe assumes the risk of dangers normally incident to the occupation in which he voluntarily engages, so far as these are not attributable to the employer’s negligence. But the employé has a right to assume that his employer has exercised proper care with respect to providing a safe place of work, and suitable and safe appliances for the work, a.nd is not to be treated as assuming the risk arising from a defect that is attributable to the employer’s negligence, until the employé becomes aware of such defect, or unless it is so plainly observable that he may be presumed to have known of it. Moreover, in order to charge an employé with the assumption of the risk attributable to a defect due to the employer’s negligence, it must appear not only that he knew (or is presumed to have known) of the defect, but that he knew it endangered his safety, or else such danger must have been so obvious that an ordinarily prudent person under the circumstances would have appreciated it.””

   16 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. Riley · Nelson v. Southern Ry. Co.

2. ““We agree with the circuit court of appeals in affirming the instructions upon this subject given by Judge Hammond to the jury, in which he said: ‘It is so simple a task, one so devoid of all exigencies of expense, necessity, or convenience, so free of any consideration of skill, except that of the foot rule, and so entirely destitute of any element of choice or selection, that not to make such a construction safe for the brakemen on the trains is a conviction of negligence.’ ””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Reading Co. v. Geary · Coalgate Co. v. Hurst

3. ““It is the duty of a railroad company to use due care to provide a reasonably safe lilac* and safe appliances for the use of workmen in its employ.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Firment v. Berwind-White Coal Mining Co. · Norfolk & W. Ry. Co. v. Beckett