Mobile Jackson Kansas City Railroad Company v. J a Turnipseed’s Empirical Analysis
219 U.S. 35 · 1910
Citation profile
255 federal appellate · 45 district · 305 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 831 later decisions (97 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2024 · most notably Patterson v. New York (1977), Leary v. United States (1969)
255 federal appellate · 45 district · 305 state decisions — followed in 41 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 Gulf Ry Co v. Ellis · Albert Adams v. People of the State of New York · Atchison Co v. Matthews · Missouri Pac Ry Co v. Mackey
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 831 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“some rational connection between the fact proved and the ultimate fact presumed.”
52 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In all actions against railroad corporations and all other corporations, companies, partnerships and individuals using engines, locomotives, or cars of any kind or description whatsoever, propelled by the dangerous agencies of steam, electricity, gas, gasoline or lever power, and running on tracks, for damages done to persons or property, proof of injury inflicted by the running of engines, locomotives or cars of any such railroad corporations or such other corporation, company, partnership or individual shall be prima facie evidence of the want of reasonable skill and care of such railroad corporation, or such other corporation, company, partnership or individual in reference to such injury. This section shall also apply to passengers and employees of railroad corporations and of such other corporations, companies, partnerships and individuals.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The only legal effect of this inference is to case upon the railroad the duty of producing some evidence to the contrary. . .. The statute does not ... fail in due process of law because it creates a presumption of liability, since its operation in only to supply an inference of liability in the absence of other evidence contradicting such inference.... [I]t is only essential that there shall be some rational connection between the fact proved and the ultimate fact presumed, and that the inference of one fact from proof of another shall not be so unreasonable as to be a purely arbitrary mandate .... From the foregoing considerations it must be obvious that the application of the act to injuries resulting from “the running of locomotives and cars” is not an arbitrary classification, but one resting upon considerations of public policy, arising out of the character of the business. 7”
1 later decision 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.