Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railway Co. v. Wallace’s Empirical Analysis
223 U.S. 481 · 1912
Citation profile
60 federal appellate · 29 district · 208 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 392 later decisions (27 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2019 · most notably Great Northern Railway Co. v. Merchants Elevator Co. (1922), Tafflin v. Levitt (1990)
60 federal appellate · 29 district · 208 state decisions — followed in 35 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 Gibbons v. Ogden · Texas Pacific Railway Company v. Abilene Cotton Oil Company · Smyth v. Ames · Slaughter-House Cases the Butchers' Benevolent Association of New Orleans v. The Crescent City Live · Williamson 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 392 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The real question, therefore, presented by this assignment of error, 'is whether a state court may enforce a right of action arising under an act of Congress. “Statutes have no extraterritorial operation, and the courts of one government cannot enforce the penal laws of another. At one time there was some question both as to the duty and power to try civil cases arising solely under the statutes of another state. But it is now recognized that the jurisdiction of state courts extends to the hearing and determination of any civil and transitory cause of action created by a foreign statute, provided it is not of a character opposed to the public policy of the state in which the suit is brought. Where the statute creating the right provides an exclusive remedy, to be enforced in a particular way, or before a special tribunal, the aggrieved party will be left to the remedy given by the statute which created the right. But jurisdiction is not defeated by implication. And, considering the relation between the Federal and state government, there is no presumption that Congress intended to prevent state courts from exercising the general jurisdiction already possessed by them, and under which they had the power to hear and determine causes of action created by Federal statute. * * * “On the contrary, the absence of such provision would be construed as recognizing that where the cause of action was not penal, but civil and transitory, it was to be subject to the principles governing t”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The plaintiffs were not obliged both to prove their case and to disprove the existence of a defense. The carrier and its agents, having received possession of the goods, were charged with the duty of delivering them, or explaining why that had not been done. This must be so, because carriers not only have better means, but often the only means of making such proof. If the failure to deliver was due to the act of God, the public enemy, or some cause against which it might lawfully contract, it was for the carrier to bring itself within such exception. In the absence of such proof, the plaintiffs were entitled to recover, and the judgment is affirmed.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“must be treated as though the point of destination was on its (the defendant's) own line.”
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.