Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 241 U.S. 190 - Georgia Florida Alabama Railway Company v. Blish Milling Company

Georgia Florida Alabama Railway Company v. Blish Milling Company’s Empirical Analysis

241 U.S. 190 · 1916

Citation profile

989
cited by 989 later decisions
39
cited 39 times by the Supreme Court
46
states following
March 2019
most recently cited

238 federal appellate · 46 district · 442 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 989 later decisions (39 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2019 · most notably Chesapeake Ry Co v. Martin (1931), United States v. Kales (1941)

238 federal appellate · 46 district · 442 state decisions — followed in 46 states

211019161920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 · Kansas City Southern Railway Co. v. Carl · Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company v. Riverside Mills · Southern Railway Co. v. Prescott

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

  1. “comprehensive enough to embrace responsibility for all losses resulting from any failure to discharge a carrier's duty as to any part of the agreed transportation which, as defined in the Federal Act, includes delivery.”
    26 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “does not require documents in a particular form. It is addressed to a practical exigency and it is to be construed in a practical way.”
    13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “In fact the transactions of a railroad company are multitudinous and are carried on through numerous employees of various grades. Ordinarily the managing officers, and those responsible for the settlement and contest of claims, would be without actual knowledge of the facts of a particular transaction. The purpose of the stipulation is not to escape liability but to facilitate prompt investigation. And, to this end, it is a precaution of obvious wisdom, and in no respect repugnant to public policy, that the carrier by its contracts should require reasonable notice of all claims against it Even with respect to its own operations.”
    12 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.