Susan Taylor v. Sextus E Taylor’s Empirical Analysis
232 U.S. 363 · 1914
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 5 district · 61 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 104 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 1998 · most notably Central Vermont Railway Company v. Mary Theresa White L (1915), New York Central Railroad v. Winfield (1917)
18 federal appellate · 5 district · 61 state decisions — followed in 21 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 Mondou v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad · Michigan Central Railroad v. Vreeland · Missouri Kansas Texas Pailway Company v. Sallie C Wulf · Smith v. State of Alabama · St Louis San Francisco Texas Railway Company v. Maude Seale
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 104 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Every common carrier by railroad while engaging in commerce between any of the several States or Territories . . . shall be liable in damages to any person suffering injury while he is employed by such carrier in such commerce, or, in case of the death of such employee, to his or her personal representative, for the benefit of the surviving widow or husband and children of such employee; . . .””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Kenney v. . R. R. · Cornish Estate““It is clear from these decisions that the source of the right of plaintiff in error was the Federal statute; and this whether the cause of action is based on the 1st section of the act or on § 9, added in 1910 [45 U.S.C. A. §§ 51, 59], From plaintiff in error’s complaint against the railroad company it is not clear whether she counted on § 1 alone or on that and § 9. If under § 1 the cause of action was not derived from the deceased in the sense of a succession from him. As said in one of the cited cases, her cause of action was ‘one beyond that which the decedent had,- — one proceeding upon altogether different principles.’ It came to her, it is true, on account of his death, but because of her pecuniary interest in his life and the damage she suffered by his death. It was her (the widow of decedent) loss, not that which his father may have suffered. The judgment she recovered was for herself alone. He had no interest in it. Any loss he may have suffered was not and could not have been any part of it, as we have seen.” [Italics ours.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Friedman v. McHugh““Sec. 9. That any right of action given by this Act to a person suffering injury shall survive to his or her personal representative, for the benefit of the surviving widow or husband and children of such employe and, if none, then of such employé’s parents; and, if none, then of the next of kin dependent upon such employé, but in such eases there shall be only one recovery for the same injury.” 36 Stat. 291 , c. 143 (U. S. Comp. St. § 8665).”
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.