Chicago Milwaukee St Paul Railway Company v. City of Minneapolis’s Empirical Analysis
232 U.S. 430 · 1914
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 3 district · 73 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 131 later decisions (15 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 1987 · most notably Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company v. City of Goldsboro (1914), Nashville St Ry v. Walters (1935)
13 federal appellate · 3 district · 73 state decisions — followed in 24 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 Chicago Co v. City of Chicago · Shoemaker v. United States · Union Bridge Company v. United States · Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company v. City of Goldsboro · Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Co. v. Illinois ex rel. Drainage Commissioners
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 131 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is well settled that railroad corporations may be required, at their own expense, not only to abolish existing grade crossings but also to build and maintain suitable bridges or viaducts to carry highways, newly laid out, over their tracks or to carry their tracks over such highways.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“* * * It necessarily follows that, if the city of Minneapolis had opened a public road through the embankment of the plaintiff in error, the latter would have had no ground to complain that its constitutional rights had been violated because it was compelled to bridge the gap at its own cost. No different rule could be applied because the highway was laid out in order to increase the advantages of a public park. In this aspect, it would be equally a crossing devoted to the public use (Shoemaker v. United States, 147 U.S. 282 , 297 [ 13 S.Ct. 361 , 37 L.Ed. 170 , 184 ]); and we see no basis for a distinction in principle in the case of an intersecting public road opened under competent authority because such a highway might lead to public recreation grounds instead of to places of business, or might connect lakes instead of avenues.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Tike railway company accepted, its franchise from the state, subject necessarily to the condition that it would conform at its own expense to any regulations, not arbitrary in their character, as to the opening or aso o£ streets, which had for their object the safety of the public, or tlio promotion of the public convenience, and which might, from timo to time, be estábil,died by the municipality, when, proceeding under legislative authority---vvilbin whose limits the company’s business was conducted.””
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.