Damselle Howard v. Illinois Central Railroad Company’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 14 district · 114 state decisions

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

1. ““The act, then, being addressed to all common carriers engaged in interstate commerce, and imposing a liability upon them in favor of any of their employees, without qualification or restriction as to the business in which the carriers or their employees may be engaged at the time of the injury, of necessity includes subjects wholly outside of the power of Congress to regulate commerce.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Watson v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. · State ex rel. Simpson v. Pennsylvania Co.

2. ““From the first section it Is certain that the act extends to every individual or corporation who may engage in interstate commerce as a common carrier. Its all-embracing words leave no room for any other conclusion. It: may include, for example, steam railroads, telegraph lines, telephone lines, the express business, vessels of every kind whether steam or sail, ferries, bridges, wagon lines, carriages, trolley lines, etc. Now, the rule which the statute establishes for the purpose of determining whether all the subjects to which it relates are to be controlled by its provisions is that any one who conducts such business be a ‘common carrier engaged in trade or commerce in the District of Columbia, or in any territory of tlic United States, or between the several states,’ etc.; that is, the subjects stated all come within the statute when the individual or corporation is a common carrier who engages ii> trade or commerce between the states, etc. From this is follows that the statute deals with all the concerns of the individuals or corporations to which it relates, if they engage as common carriers in trade or commerce between the states, etc., and does not confine itself to the interstate commerce business which may be done by such persons. Stated in another form, the statute is addressed to the individuals or corporations who are engaged in interstate commerce, and is not confined solely to regulating the interstate commerce business which such persons may do; that is, i”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Wells-fargo Express Co.

3. ““While it may be, if we indulged, for the sake of argument, in the hypothesis of limited power upon which the second proposition rests, that it would result that a consideration of the first proposition would be unnecessary because the act would be found to be repugnant to the Constitution because embracing provisions beyond such assumed and restricted authority, we do not think we are at liberty to avoid deciding whether, in any possible aspect, the subject to which the act relates is within the power of Congress. We say this, for if it be that, from the nature of the subject, no power whatever over the same can, under any conceivable circumstances, be possessed by Congress, we ought to so declare, and not, by an attempt to conceive the Inconceivable, assume the existence of some authority, thus, it may be, misleading Congress and giving rise to future contention.” 207 U. S. 494 , 28 Sup. Ct. 143 , 52 L. Ed. 297 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Watson v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co.