New York Central Railroad Company v. Sarah White’s Empirical Analysis
243 U.S. 188 · 1917
Citation profile
187 federal appellate · 69 district · 510 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,166 later decisions (154 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2021 · most notably Snyder v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts (1934), Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc. (1978)
187 federal appellate · 69 district · 510 state decisions — followed in 45 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 Hurtado v. People of the State of California · William Truax v. Mike Raich · Munn v. Illinois · Mondou v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad · Frank v. Mangum
Cited together with Mountain Timber Company v. State of Washington · Hawkins v. Bleakly · Pedersen v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad · Munn v. Illinois · Middleton v. Texas Power & Light Co.
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 1,166 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“No person has a vested interest in any rule of law, entitling him to insist that it shall remain unchanged for his benefit.”
16 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““This, of course, is not to say that any scale of compensation, however insignificant, on the one hand, or onerous, on the other, would be supportable. In this ease, no criticism is made on the ground that the compensation prescribed by the statute in question is unreasonable in amount, either in general or in' the particular case. Any question of that kind may be met when it arises.””
14 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“‘ ‘ The admitted fact that the new station and tracks were designed for use, when finished, in interstate commerce, does not bring the case within the Federal act. The test is, ‘was the employee at the time of the injury engaged in interstate transportation, or in work so closely related to it as to be practically a part of it?’ Shanks v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. 239, U.S. 556, 558, 60 L. Ed. 436, 438 , L.R.A. 1916 C, 797, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 188. Decedent’s work bore no direct relation to interstate transportation, had to do solely with construction work, which is clearly distinguishable, as was pointed out in Pedersen v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. 229, U.S. 146, 152, 57 L. Ed. 1125, 1128 , 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 646, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 153, 3 N.C.C.A. 779.””
4 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.