Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Layton’s Empirical Analysis
243 U.S. 617 · 1917
Citation profile
80 federal appellate · 2 district · 97 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 255 later decisions (46 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 1993 · most notably Urie v. Thompson (1949), Kernan v. American Dredging Co. (1958)
80 federal appellate · 2 district · 97 state decisions — followed in 22 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedPierce v. Pierce
Relationships
Relies on Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. Rigsby · St Louis Iron Mountain Southern Railway Company v. May Taylor W · Southern Railway Company v. United States · Chicago Burlington Quincy Railway Company v. United States · Southern Railway Company v. Railroad Commission of Indiana
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 255 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“not from the position the employee may be in, or the work which he may be doing at the moment when he is injured.”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Davis v. Wolfe · Urie v. Thompson“the necessity of men going between the ends of cars.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““A train of many ears standing on a switch was separated by about two car-lengths from five cars on the same track loaded with coal. An engine, pushing a stock car ahead of it, came into the SAvitch, and failed in an attempt to couple to the five cars, but struck them with such force that, although the engine with the car attached stopped within half a car-length, the five loaded cars were driven over the two intervening ear-lengths ánd struck so violently against the standing train that the plaintiff, who was on one of the five cars for the purpose of releasing the brakes, was thrown to the track, with the result that his right arm was crushed by the wheels and was amputated below the elbow.””
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.