Tennessee Coal Iron Railroad Company v. Wiley George’s Empirical Analysis
233 U.S. 354 · 1914
Citation profile
74 federal appellate · 3 district · 94 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 256 later decisions (49 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2025 · most notably Burford v. Sun Oil Co. (1943), Lauritzen v. Larsen (1953)
74 federal appellate · 3 district · 94 state decisions — followed in 23 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 Mills v. Green · Mondou v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad · The Harrisburg · Baltimore Co v. Baugh · Davis v. Mills
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 256 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The courts of the sister State trying the case would be bound to give full faith and credit to all those substantial provisions of the statute which inhered in the cause of action....”). However,”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“must be brought in a court of competent jurisdiction within the State of Alabama and not elsewhere.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The cause of action is transitory, and like any other transitory action can be enforced “in any court of competent jurisdiction within the state of Alabama ...” But the owner of the defective machinery causing the injury may have removed from the state, and it would be a deprivation of a fixed right if the plaintiff could not sue the defendant in Alabama because he had left the state, nor sue him where the defendant or his property could be found because the statute did not permit a suit elsewhere than in Alabama. The injured plaintiff may likewise have moved from Alabama, and for that, or other, reason may have found it to his interest to bring suit by attachment or in personam in a state other than where the injury was inflicted.”
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.