Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 227 U.S. 657 - Missouri Kansas Texas Railway Company v. Harriman Brothers

Missouri Kansas Texas Railway Company v. Harriman Brothers’s Empirical Analysis

227 U.S. 657 · 1913

Citation profile

580
cited by 580 later decisions
33
cited 33 times by the Supreme Court
39
states following
February 2018
most recently cited

74 federal appellate · 31 district · 359 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 580 later decisions (33 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2018 · most notably United States v. Marion (1971), United States v. Kubrick (1979)

74 federal appellate · 31 district · 359 state decisions — followed in 39 states

286019131920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Texas Pacific Railway Company v. Abilene Cotton Oil Company · Mondou v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad · Adams Express Co. v. Croninger · Michigan Central Railroad v. Vreeland · Armour Packing Company 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 580 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““the validity of a limitation upon the liability thereby imposed [by the bill of lading] is a Federal question to be determined under the general common law, and, as such, is withdrawn from the field of state law or legislation. The liability imposed by the statute is the liability imposed by the common law upon a common carrier, and may be limited or qualified by special contract with the shipper. ...””
    19 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““If he knowingly declares an undervaluation for the purpose of obtaining the lower of two published rates, he thereby obtains an advantage and causes a. discrimination forbidden and made unlawful by the first section of the Elkins Act of February 19, 1903 ( 32 Stat. 847 , c. 708).””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “any statute or limitation to the contrary notwithstanding.”
    3 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.