Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 204 U.S. 570 - Mason City & Fort Dodge Railroad v. Boynton

Mason City & Fort Dodge Railroad v. Boynton’s Empirical Analysis

204 U.S. 570 · 1907

Citation profile

194
cited by 194 later decisions
21
cited 21 times by the Supreme Court
5
states following
February 2017
most recently cited

34 federal appellate · 37 district · 10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 194 later decisions (21 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2017 · most notably Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets (1941), County of Allegheny v. Frank Mashuda Co. (1959)

34 federal appellate · 37 district · 10 state decisions

250190719101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedthe decision below (from Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Reagan v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. · Boom Company v. Patterson · Meyer v. Construction Co. · Madisonville Traction Company v. Saint Bernard Mining Company · Stone v. State of South Carolina

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

  1. ““But this court must construe the act of Congress regarding removal. And it is obvious that the word ‘defendant’ as there used is directed toward more important matters than the burden of proof or the right to open and close. It is quite conceivable that a state enactment might reverse the names which, for the purposes of removal, this court might think the proper ones to be applied. In condemnation proceedings the words ‘plaintiff’ and ‘defendant’ can be used only in an uncommon and liberal sense. The plaintiff complains of nothing. The defendant denies no past or threatened wrong. Both parties are actors: one to acquire title, the other to get as large pay as he can. It is not necessary, in order to decide that the present removal was right, to say that the state decision was wrong. We leave the latter question where we find it. But we are of opinion that the removal in this case was right * * (Emphasis supplied.)”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[t]he intent of the railroad to get the land is the mainspring of the proceedings.... The land is not lost until the owner is paid. Therefore, in a broad sense, the railroad is the plaintiff....”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “in which it was held [in similar circumstances] that the railroad had a right to remove. Myers v. Chicago & N.W.R. Co., 118 Iowa, 312, 324, 91 N.W. 1076. See also Kirby v. Chicago & N.W.R. Co., 106 Fed. 551.”
    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.