New York Philadelphia Norfolk Railroad Company v. Peninsula Produce Exchange of Maryland’s Empirical Analysis
240 U.S. 34 · 1916
Citation profile
83 federal appellate · 19 district · 65 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 246 later decisions (15 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2011 · most notably International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States (1977), Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois (1977)
83 federal appellate · 19 district · 65 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 Texas Pacific Railway Company v. Abilene Cotton Oil Company · Adams Express Co. v. Croninger · Kansas City Southern Railway Co. v. Carl · Missouri Kansas Texas Railway Company v. Harriman Brothers · Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company v. Riverside 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 246 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[is] comprehensive enough to embrace all damages resulting from any failure to discharge a carrier’s duty with respect to any part of the transportation to the agreed destination. It is not necessary, nor is it natural, in view of the general purpose of the statute, to take the words ‘to the property’ as limiting the word ‘damage’ as well as the word ‘injury,’ and thus as rendering the former wholly superfluous.””
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Sec. 2. (a) No carrier is bound to transport said property by any particular train or vessel or in time for any particular market or otherwise than with reasonable dispatch. (Emphasis added) 3”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““[T]he reference to the market said to have been lost [is] merely for the purpose of calculating damages which were sought solely because of lack of reasonable diligence and not upon the allegation of any added duty with respect to a particular train or market.” 240 U.S. at 41 , 36 S.Ct. at 233 .”
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.