Santa Fe Prescott Phoenix Railway Company v. Grant Brothers Construction Company’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 8 district · 49 state decisions

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 80 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In constructing, improving, or repairing its road, and in building its extensions and branches, the railroad company is providing facilities for its service as a common carrier, but, of course, is not acting as such. It may do. the work itself, if it chooses, or it may make it the subject of contract with another. In the latter case it simply employs an appropriate agency. The haulage by the railroad company of the. men, appliances, and supplies, required by the contractor for the purpose of the construction or improvement, to or from the point on its line where the work is to be done, is merely incidental to the work itself. The cost of such haulage is obviously an item of expense which must be taken into account in fixing the terms of the construction contract, and in providing for it over its own line the railroad company may adjust the matter with the contractor as it sees fit. If the railroad company did the work directly, it would have to take its employees and the necessary outfit to the place of work, and it may undertake to do the like for the contractor, either free of charge or at reduced rates, as they may agree.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Oklahoma Belt R. Co. v. Schaff

2. ““The parties, then, were free to make their own bargain as to this transportation and the liability which should attach to it. There is no rule of public policy which denies effect to their expressed intention, but, on the contrary, as the matter lies within the range of permissible agreement, the highest public policy is found in the enforcement of the contract which was actually made. Undoubtedly, it is not to be lightly concluded that the railroad company has been relieved from liability for its neglect, but, on the other hand, if this was the agreement as fairly interpreted, it is not to be arbitrarily overridden. The parties were on an equal footing. * * * ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Fire Association of Phila. v. Allis Chalmers Mfg. Co.