Cuba Railroad v. Crosby’s Empirical Analysis
222 U.S. 473 · 1912
Citation profile
117 federal appellate · 43 district · 47 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 352 later decisions (22 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2013 · most notably Lauritzen v. Larsen (1953), Zschernig v. Miller (1968)
117 federal appellate · 43 district · 47 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
reviewedCuba R. v. Crosby (from Third Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on American Banana Company v. United Fruit Company · Slater v. Mexican National Railroad · The " Scotland" · The Chattahoochee · Stewart v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad
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 352 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the only justification for allowing a party to recover when the cause of action arose in another civilized jurisdiction is a well founded belief that it was a cause of action in that place.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“rudimentary contracts or torts made or committed abroad . . . (where) courts would assume a liability to exist if nothing to the contrary appeared”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““In the case at bar .the court was dealing with the law of Cuba, ;a country inheriting the law of Spain, and, we may presume, continuing it with such modifications as later years may have brought. There is no general presumption that that law is the same as the common law. * * * Whatever presumption there is is purely one of fact, that may be corrected by proof. Therefore the presumption should be limited to cases in i which it reasonably' may be believed t'o express the fact. .'.Generally speaking,- as between two common-law countries, the common law of one reasonably may be presumed to be what it is decided to be in the other, in a case tried in the latter state. But a statute of one would not be presumed to correspond to a statute in the other, and when we leave common-law territory for that where a different system prevails, obviously the limits must be narrower still.””
4 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.