New York Central Hudson River Railroad Company v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
212 U.S. 481 · 1909
Citation profile
206 federal appellate · 32 district · 67 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 420 later decisions (24 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2019 · most notably Iannelli v. United States (1975), United States v. Dotterweich (1943)
206 federal appellate · 32 district · 67 state decisions — followed in 19 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.
Relationships
Relies on Boyd v. United States · Edwin Hale v. William Henkel · Barbier v. Connolly · Davis v. United States · Monongahela Navigation Co. v. United States
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 420 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Objections were made to the sufficiency of the indictment based upon its want of particularity in describing the offense intended to be charged. Section 1025 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 720) provides that uo judgment upon an indictment shall be affected by reason of any defect or imperfection in matter of form which shall not tend to the prejudice of the .defendant, and, unless the substantial rights of the accused were -prejudiced by the refusal to require a more specific statement of the manner in which the offense was committed, there can be no reversal. Connors v. United States, 158 U. S. 408 , 411 [ 15 Sup. Ct. 951 , 39 L. Ed. 1033 ]; Armour Packing Co. v. United States, 209 U. S. 56 , 84 [ 28 Sup. Ct. 428 , 52 L. Ed. 681 ]. An examination of the indictment shows that it specifically states the elements of the offense with sufficient particularity to fully advise the defendant of the crime charged and to enable a conviction, if had, to be pleaded in bar of any subsequent prosecution for the same offense.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““In construing and enforcing the provisions of this section, the act, omission, or failure of any officer, agent, or other person acting for or employed by any common carrier, or shipper, acting within the scope of his employment, shall in every case be also deemed to be the act, omission, or failure of such carrier or shipper as well as that of the person.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““complaining of the constitutionality of the act, if objectionable on that ground, and the case does not come within that class-of cases in which unconstitutional provisions áre' so interblended with valid ones that the whole act must fall, notwithstanding its constitutionality is challenged by one who might be legally brought within its provisions.””
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.