Garrett v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

33 federal appellate · 12 district · 38 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 106 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The request is now made that in view of all the circumstances — especially the former undetermined meaning of the statute — this court remand the cause for a new trial upon the declaration being so amended as to include the essential allegation. But we do not think such action would be proper. The courts below committed no error of which just complaint can be made here; and the rights of the defendant must be given effect, notwithstanding the unusual difficulties and uncertainties with which counsel l'or the plaintiff found himself confronted.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Walker v. Iowa Cent. Ry. Co. · United States v. Virginia

2. ““Where any fact is necessary to be proved in order to sustain the plaintiff’s right of recovery, the declaration must contain an averment substantially of such fact in order to let in the proof. * * * Although the same precision of statement is not required [in equity] as in pleadings at law, nevertheless it is held to be absolutely necessary that in bills of equity such a convenient degree of certainty should be adopted as may serve to give the defendant full information of the case which he is called upon to answer. Every bill must contain in itself sufficient matters of fact, per se, to maintain the plaintiff’s case; and if the proof go to matters not set up therein, the court cannot judicially act upon them as a ground for decision, for the pleadings do not put them in contestation.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. St. Louis S. F. R. Co. v. Dorman

3. ““It is now definitely settled that the act declared two distinct and independent liabilities resting upon the common foundation of a wrongful injury: (1)-Liability to the injured employe for which he alone can recover; and (2) in "case of death, liability to his personal representative ‘for the benefit of the surviving widow or husband and children,’ and, if none, then of the parents, which extends only to the pecuniary loss and damage resulting to them by reason of the death.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Oliver v. Seaboard Air Line Ry.