Minneapolis St Louis Railroad Company v. George Bombolis’s Empirical Analysis
241 U.S. 211 · 1916
Citation profile
67 federal appellate · 31 district · 371 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 620 later decisions (88 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2024 · most notably Granfinanciera, S.A. v. Nordberg (1989), Southland Corp. v. Keating (1984)
67 federal appellate · 31 district · 371 state decisions — followed in 40 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 M'Culloch v. State of Maryland · Hilton v. Guyot · Mondou v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad · Albert Twining v. State of New Jersey · Bauman v. Ross
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 620 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“applies only to proceedings in courts of the United States, and does not in any manner whatever govern or regulate trials by jury in state courts, or the standards which must be applied concerning the same.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“`the general jurisdiction conferred by the state law upon a state court embraced otherwise causes of action created by'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[L]awful rights of the citizen, whether arising from a legitimate exercise of state or national power, unless excepted by express constitutional limitation or by valid legislation to that effect, are concurrently subject to be enforced in the courts of the state or nation when such rights come within in the general scope of the jurisdiction conferred upon such courts by the authority, state or nation, creating them. This principle was made the basis of the first Federal judiciary act, and has prevailed in theory and practice ever since as to rights of every character, whether derived from constitutional grant or legislative enactment, state or national. In fact, this theory and practice is but an expression of the principles underlying the Constitution, and which cause the governments and courts of both the nation and the several states not to be strange or foreign to each other in the broad sense of that word, but to be all courts of a common country, all within the orbit of their lawful authority being charged with the duty to safeguard and enforce the right of every citizen without reference to the particular exercise of governmental power from which the right may have arisen, if only the authority to enforce such right comes generally within the scope of the jurisdiction conferred by the government creating them.”
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.