Davis v. Cornwell’s Empirical Analysis
264 U.S. 560 · 1924
Citation profile
83 federal appellate · 12 district · 35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 164 later decisions (15 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2003 · most notably American Telephone and Telegraph Company, v. Central Office Telephone, Inc. (1998), Louisville Co v. Chatters Southern Ry Co (1929)
83 federal appellate · 12 district · 35 state decisions — followed in 16 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 Taubel-Scott-Kitzmiller Co. v. Fox · Chicago & Alton Railroad v. Kirby · Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. v. Maucher · Harrison v. Missouri Pacific Railway 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 164 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The assumption by the carrier of the additional obligation was necessarily a preference. The objection is not only lack of authority in the station agent. The paramount requirement that tariff provisions be-strictly adhered to, so that shippers may receive equal treatment, presents an insuperable obstacle to recovery.””
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The transportation service to be performed was that of common carrier under published tariffs, not a special service under a special contract, as in Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific R. Co. v. Maucher, 248 U.S. 359 , 39 S.Ct. 108 , 63 L.Ed. 294 . The agent’s promise that the cars would be available on the day named was introduced to establish an absolute obligation to supply the cars, not as evidence that the shipper had given due notice of the time when the cars would be needed, or as evidence that the carrier had not made reasonable efforts to supply the cars. The obligation of the common carrier implied in the tariff is to use diligence to provide, upon reasonable notice, cars for loading at the time desired. A contract to furnish cars on a day certain imposes a greater obligation than that implied in the tariff. For, under the contract, proof of due diligence would not excuse, failure to perform.””
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.