Bitterman v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad’s Empirical Analysis
207 U.S. 205 · 1907
Citation profile
132 federal appellate · 93 district · 39 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 375 later decisions (23 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2014 · most notably McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. (1936), Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co. (1911)
132 federal appellate · 93 district · 39 state decisions — followed in 18 states
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 Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Swift Company v. United States · New York New Haven Hartford Railroad Company v. Interstate Commerce Commission · Root v. Railway Co. · Whitehead v. Shattuck · Board of Trade v. Christie Grain & Stock Co.
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 375 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Besides the substantial character of the jurisdictional averment in the bill is to be tested, not by the mere immediate pecuniary damage resulting from the acts complained of, but by the value of the business to be protected and the rights of property which the complainant sought to have recognized and enforced.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““TEe proposition that the bill was multifarious because of the misjoinder of parties and causes of action was not assigned as error in the circuit court, of appeals, and, therefore, might well be held not to be open. But passing that view, we hold the objection to be untenable. The acts complained of as to each defendant were of a like character, their operation and effect upon the rights of the complainant were identical, the relief sought against each defendant was the same, and the defenses which might be interposed were common to each defendant and involved like legal questions. Under these conditions the case is brought within the principle laid down in Hale v. Allinson, 188 U. S. 56 , 77 [ 23 Sup. Ct. 244 , 47 L. Ed. 380 ].””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“From the nature and character of the nontransferable tickets, the number of people to whom they were issued, the dealings of the defendants therein and their avowed purpose to continue such dealings in the future, the risk to result from mistakes in enforcing the forfeiture provision and the multiplicity of suits necessarily to be engendered if redress was sought at law, all establish the inadequacy of a legal remedy and the necessity for the intervention of equity.”
2 later decisions 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.