Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 193 U.S. 30 - Cincinnati Street Railway Co. v. Snell

Cincinnati Street Railway Co. v. Snell’s Empirical Analysis

193 U.S. 30 · 1904

Citation profile

94
cited by 94 later decisions
22
cited 22 times by the Supreme Court
12
states following
May 2012
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 4 district · 48 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 94 later decisions (22 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2012 · most notably Louisville Gas & Electric Co. v. Coleman (1928), Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. McGuire (1911)

4 federal appellate · 4 district · 48 state decisions — followed in 12 states

190190419101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Yick Wo v. Hopkins · Smyth v. Ames · Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co. · Gulf Ry Co v. Ellis · Hayes v. State of Missouri

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

  1. “[I]t is fundamental rights which the Fourteenth Amendment safeguards and not the mere forum which a State may see proper to designate for the enforcement and protection of such rights. Given therefore a condition where fundamental rights are equally protected and preserved, it is impossible to say that the rights which are thus protected and preserved have been denied because the State has deemed best to provide for a trial in one forum or another. It is not under any view the mere tribunal into which a person is authorized to proceed by a State which determines whether the equal protection of the law has been afforded, but whether in the tribunals which the State has provided equal laws prevail.”
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““When a corporation having more than fifty stockholders is a party in an action pending in a county in which the corporation keeps its principal office, or transacts its principal business, if the opposite party make affidavit that he cannot, as he believes, have a fair and impartial trial in that county, and his application is sustained by the several affidavits of five credible persons residing in such county, the court shall change the venue to the adjoining county most convenient for both parties.””
    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.