United States v. Erie Railroad’s Empirical Analysis
237 U.S. 402 · 1915
Citation profile
109 federal appellate · 19 district · 37 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 198 later decisions (15 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2022 · most notably United States v. Brooklyn Eastern District Terminal (1919), United States v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad (1915)
109 federal appellate · 19 district · 37 state decisions — followed in 14 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedUnited States v. Erie R. Co. (from Third Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Johnson v. Southern Pacific Co. · St Louis Iron Mountain Southern Railway Company v. May Taylor W · Southern Railway Company v. United States · Schlemmer v. Buffalo, Rochester & Pittsburg Railway Co. · Chicago Burlington Quincy Railway Company v. United States
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 198 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“exposed to hazards which made it essential that appliances be at hand for readily and quickly checking or controlling their movements.”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The hauling of the cars with, defective equipment was clearly in contravention of the statute. While section 4 of the act of 1910 permits such cars to be hauled, without liability for the statutory penalty, from the place where the defects are discovered to the nearest available point for-making repairs, it distinctly excludes from this permission all cars which can be repaired at the place where they are found to be defective, and also declares that nothing therein shall be construed to permit the hauling of defective cars ‘by means of chains instead of drawbars’ in association with other cars in commercial use, unless the defective cars ‘contain live stock or perishable freight.’ Six of the cars that were hauled while their equipment was defective could have been readily repaired at the place where the defects were discovered, which was before the hauling began. The remaining two were hauled by means of chains instead of drawbars in association with other cars in commercial use, and it is not claimed that they contained live stock or perishable freight..””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“used on any railroad engaged in interstate commerce.”
2 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.