Seaboard Air Line Railway v. Renn’s Empirical Analysis
241 U.S. 290 · 1916
Citation profile
55 federal appellate · 8 district · 96 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 217 later decisions (27 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2021 · most notably United States v. Memphis Cotton Oil Co. (1933), Scarborough v. Principi (2004)
55 federal appellate · 8 district · 96 state decisions — followed in 27 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 Missouri Kansas Texas Pailway Company v. Sallie C Wulf · Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. Cox · Union Pac Ry Co v. Wyler · Hutchinson v. Otis · McDermott v. Severe
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 217 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““An amendment to a petition which sets up no new cause of action or claim, and makes no new demand, but simply varies or expands the allegations in support of the cause of action already propounded, relates back to the commencement of the action, and the running of the statute against the claim so pleaded is arrested at that point. But an amendment which introduces a new or different cause of action, and makes a new or different demand, not before introduced or made in the pending suit, does not relate back to the beginning of the action, so as to stop the running of the statute, but is the equivalent of a fresh suit upon a new cause of action, and the statute continues to run until the o amendment is filed.””
13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Error is assigned upon a refusal to instruct the jury, as a matter of law, that there was no evidence of actionable negligence on the part of the defendant, and that the evidence conclusively established an assumption by the plaintiff of the risk resulting in his injury. Both courts, trial and appellate, held against the defendant upon these points. They involve an appreciation of all the evidence and the inferences which admissibly might be drawn therefrom; and it suffices to say that we find no such clear or certain error as would justify disturbing the concurring conclusions of the two courts upon these questions.””
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.