Chunn v. City & Suburban Railway’s Empirical Analysis
207 U.S. 302 · 1907
Citation profile
72 federal appellate · 5 district · 45 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 153 later decisions (6 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 1956 · most notably Toledo St Co v. Allen (1928), Kansas City Southern Railway Co. v. Ellzey (1927)
72 federal appellate · 5 district · 45 state decisions — followed in 12 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 District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Grand Trunk Ry Co of Canada v. Ives · Inland & Seaboard Coasting Co. v. Tolson · Railroad Company v. Houston · Richmond Co v. Powers · McDermott v. Severe
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 153 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Nor is it clear that, even if the plaintiff was not free from fault, her negligence was the proximate cause of the injury. If she carelessly placed herself in a position exposed to danger, and it -was discovered by the defendant in time to have avoided the injury by the use of reasonable care on its part, and the defendant failed to use such care, that failure might be found to be the sole eause of the resulting injury.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“That “the motorman took no precaution whatever; he assumed that those who were standing on the platform would take care of themselves, and ran his car by them at full speed as if oblivions of their existence;” and, further, that “the plaintiff had the right to assume that the defendant would not commit such an act of negligence, and that when it stopped one car, and thereby invited her to enter it, it would not run another rapidly by the place of her entrance and put her in peril.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Tutweiler v. Lowery
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.