St Louis Iron Mountain Southern Railway Company v. C a Starbird’s Empirical Analysis
243 U.S. 592 · 1917
Citation profile
107 federal appellate · 6 district · 99 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 330 later decisions (19 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2010 · most notably Mercoid Corporation v. Mid-Continent Inv Co (1944), Chesapeake Ry Co v. Martin (1931)
107 federal appellate · 6 district · 99 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 Chicago Co v. City of Chicago · Mondou v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad · Adams Express Co. v. Croninger · Shively v. Bowlby · Georgia Florida Alabama Railway Company v. Blish Milling Company
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 330 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““As the shipment in this case was interstate, there can be no question that, since the decision in the Croninger Case, supra, the parties are held to the responsibilities imposed by the federal law, to the exclusion of all other rules of obligation. Since the Carmack Amendment, the carrier in this case is liable only under the terms of that act of Congress, and the action against it to recover on a through bill of lading for the negligence of connecting carriers as well as of itself was founded on that amendment.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Since the passage of the Carmack Amendment, the state court must be held to have known that interstate shipments were covered by a uniform federal rule which required the issuance of a bill of lading, and that that bill of lading contained the entire contract upon which the responsibilities of the parties rested. This is the result not only of our holdings, but is universally held in the state courts.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““We find nothing unreasonable in the stipulation concerning notice, and there was no attempt made to comply with it. We therefore think the Supreme Court of Arkansas erred in holding that verbal notice to the dockmaster of the condition of the peaches was a compliance with the terms of the contract.””
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.