St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. Wynne’s Empirical Analysis
224 U.S. 354 · 1912
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 5 district · 48 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 99 later decisions (5 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2008 · most notably Dahnke-Walker Milling Co. v. Bondurant (1921), Fiske v. State of Kansas (1927)
15 federal appellate · 5 district · 48 state decisions — followed in 17 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 Ex Parte: Edward T Young · Gulf Ry Co v. Ellis · Hooper v. People of State of California · William Parsons v. Bedford Breedlove · Atchison Co v. Matthews
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 99 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““We think the conclusion is unavoidable that the statute, as so construed and applied, is an arbitrary exercise of the powers of government and violative of the fundamental' rights embraced within the conception of due process of law. It does not merely provide a reasonable incentive for, the prompt settlement, without suit, of just demands of a class admitting of special treatment by tbe legislature, as was the case with the statute considered in Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. Seegers, 207 U. S. 73 , 52 L. Ed. 108 , 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 28, but attaches onerous penalties to the nonpayment of extravagant demands, thereby making submission to them the preferable alternative. Thus, it takes property from one and gives it to another, not because of a breach by the former of a duty to the latter or to the public, but because of a lawful exercise of an undoubted right. Plainly this cannot be done consistently with due process of law.””
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.