Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Laramie Stock Yards Company’s Empirical Analysis
231 U.S. 190 · 1913
Citation profile
212 federal appellate · 97 district · 80 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 659 later decisions (30 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2018 · most notably Landgraf v. USI Film Products (1994), Bradley v. School Board of City of Richmond (1974)
212 federal appellate · 97 district · 80 state decisions — followed in 18 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 Calder et Wife, v. Bull et Wife. · Munn v. Illinois · Sturges v. Crowninshield · United States ex rel. Attorney General of the United States v. Delaware & Hudson Co. · Sinking-Fund Cases v. United States Central Pacific Railroad Company
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 659 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the unequivocal and inflexible import of the terms, and the manifest intention of the legislature.”
57 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It is established that the right -of way to the several railroads was a present absolute grant, subject to no conditions except those necessarily implied, such as that the roads should be constructed and used; and it has been decided that the right of w.ay was a very important aid given to the roads (Railroad Company v. Baldwin, 103 U. S. 426 [ 26 L. Ed. 578 ]; Stuart v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.. 227 U. S. 342 [33 Sup. Ct. 338, 57 L. Ed. 535 ]); and that it could not he voluntarily transferred by the companies nor acquired' against them by adverse possession (Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. Townsend, 190 U. S. 267 [23 Sup. Ct. 671, 47 L. Ed. 1044 ]); Northern Pacific Railroad Co. v. Smith, 171 U. S. 260, 275 [18 Sup. Ct. 794, 43 L. Ed. 158 ]; Northern Pacific Railroad. Co. v. Ely, 197 U. S. 1, 5 [25 Sup. Ct. 302, 49 L. Ed. 639 ].””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Dugan v. Montoya
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.