Northern Pacific Railway Company, a Corporation v. Tillie Mely, as Administratrix of the Estate of A. E. Mely, Deceased’s Empirical Analysis
219 F.2d 199 · 1954
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently April 2020 · most notably Domeracki v. Humble Oil & Refining Co. (1971), Bryson v. United States (1956)
16 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 state decisions
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
Applies 45 U.S.C. § 51 (Federal Employers' Liability Act) · 45 U.S.C. § 53 (Federal Employers' Liability Act) · 45 U.S.C. § 54 (Federal Employers' Liability Act)
Relies on Stein v. People of State of New York Wissner · Clark v. United States · Tiller v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad · McDonald v. Pless · Hyde 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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * The inviolability of the jury room from outside influence of any sort, actual or potential, is a prime necessity in the administration of justice. That unqualified rule requires that if a person, whether on the jury or not, knows of such outside influence, or an attempt at it, he must at once report his information to the court. The same rule requires that jurors are not to be harassed in any manner because of a verdict they have rendered. If jurors are conscious that they will be subjected to interrogation or searching hostile inquiry as to what occurred in the jury room and why, they are almost inescapably influenced to some extent by that anticipated annoyance. The courts will not permit that potential influence to in vade the jury room. He who makes studied inquiries of jurors as to what occurred there acts at his peril, lest he be held as acting in obstruction of the administration of justice. Much of such conversation and inquiry may be idle curiosity, and harmless, but a searching or pointed examination of jurors in behalf of a party to a trial is to be emphatically condemned. * * *” pp. 745, 746.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““* * * We do hold for future guidance that it is improper and unethical for lawyers, court attaches or judges in a particular case to make public the transactions in the jury room or to interview jurors to discover what was the course of deliberation of a trial jury.” p. 202.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“expressions, arguments, motives and beliefs”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Poulin v. Zartman
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.