Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 191 U.S. 84 - United States v. Denver & Rio Grande Railroad

United States v. Denver & Rio Grande Railroad’s Empirical Analysis

191 U.S. 84 · 1903

Citation profile

133
cited by 133 later decisions
14
cited 14 times by the Supreme Court
12
states following
October 2019
most recently cited

44 federal appellate · 9 district · 32 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 133 later decisions (14 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2019 · most notably Urie v. Thompson (1949), Messenger v. Anderson (1912)

44 federal appellate · 9 district · 32 state decisions — followed in 12 states

200190319101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 United States v. Cook · Northern Pac Co v. Lewis · Clifford v. . Dam · Willett v. Rich

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

  1. “"[W]here the subject-matter of an negative averment lies peculiarly within the knowledge of the other party, the averment is taken as true unless disproved by that party." When a negative is averred in pleading, or plaintiff's case depends on the establishment of a negative, and the means of proving the fact are equally within the control of each party, then the burden of proof is upon the party averring the negative; but when the opposite party must, from the nature of the case, himself be in possession of full and plenary proof to disprove the negative averment, and the other party is not in possession of such proof, then it is manifestly just and reasonable that the party which is in possession of the proof should be required to adduce it; or upon his failure to do so, we must presume it does not exist, which of itself establishes a negative.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “As its judgment upon the first writ was merely for a reversal ot the court below and for a . . '. trial, such judgment, not being final, could not be made the subject of a writ. .... from this cburt.”
    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.