Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 240 U.S. 632 - Southern Railway Co. v. Prescott

Southern Railway Co. v. Prescott’s Empirical Analysis

240 U.S. 632 · 1916

Citation profile

472
cited by 472 later decisions
32
cited 32 times by the Supreme Court
34
states following
July 2006
most recently cited

124 federal appellate · 36 district · 176 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 472 later decisions (32 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2006 · most notably Georgia Florida Alabama Railway Company v. Blish Milling Company (1916), Missouri Pacific Railroad v. Elmore & Stahl (1964)

124 federal appellate · 36 district · 176 state decisions — followed in 34 states

11401916192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 Adams Express Co. v. Croninger · Louisville Nashville Railroad Company v. G a Maxwell · Kansas City Southern Railway Co. v. Carl · Missouri Kansas Texas Railway Company v. Harriman Brothers · Boston & Maine Railroad v. Hooker

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 472 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““It was explicitly provided that in case the property was not removed within the specified time it should be kept subject to liability ‘as warehouseman only.’ The railway company was therefore liable only in case of negligence. The plaintiff, asserting neglect, had the burden of establishing it. This burden did not shift. As it is the duty of the warehouseman to deliver upon proper demand, his failure to do so, without excuse, has been regarded as making a prima facie ease of negligence. If, however, it appears that the loss is due to fire, that fact in itself, in the absence of circumstances permitting the inference of lack of reasonable precautions, does not suffice to show neglect, and the plaintiff having the affirmative of the issue must go forward with the evidence. * * * In the present case, it is undisputed that the loss was due to fire which destroyed the company’s warehouse with its contents including the property in question. The fire occurred in the early morning when the depot and warehouse were closed. The cause of the fire did not appear, and there was nothing in the circumstances to indicate neglect on the part of the railway company.””
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Viewing the contract set forth in the bill of lading as still in force, the measure of liability under it must also be regarded as a federal question. As it has often been said, the statutory provisions manifest the intent of Congress that the obligation of the carrier with respect to the services within the purview of the statute shall be governed by uniform rule in the place of the diverse requirements of state legislation and decisions,” citing authorities. “And the question as to the responsibility under the bill of lading is none the less a federal one because it must be resolved by the application of general principles of the common law.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “" Received,................the property described below, in apparent good order, except as noted (contents and condition of contents of packages unknown), marked, consigned, and destined as indicated below, which said company (which word company is to be understood throughout the contract as meaning any person or corporation in possession of the property under the contract) agrees to carry to its usual place of delivery at said destination, if on its own road or its own water fine, otherwise to deliver to another carrier on the route to said destination. It is mutually agreed, as to each carrier of all or any of said property over all or any portion of said route to destination, and as to each party at any time interested in all or any of said property, that every service to be performed hereunder shall be subject to all the conditions not prohibited by law, whether printed or written, herein contained (including conditions on back hereof) which are hereby agreed to by the shipper and accepted for himself and his assigns. “ Conditions. “ Sec. 1. The carrier or party in possession of any of the property herein described shall be liable as at common law for any loss thereof or damage thereto, except as hereinafter provided. “ Sec. 4(a). Property not removed by the party entitled to receive it within the free time. allowed by tariffs lawfully on file (such free time to be computed as therein provided), after notice of the arrival of the property at destination or at the port of ”
    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.