Baltimore Co v. Groeger’s Empirical Analysis
266 U.S. 521 · 1925
Citation profile
218 federal appellate · 4 district · 92 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 410 later decisions (40 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2024 · most notably Monroe v. Pape (1961), Urie v. Thompson (1949)
218 federal appellate · 4 district · 92 state decisions — followed in 24 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
reviewedthe decision below (from Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Patton v. Texas & Pacific Railway Co. · Slocum v. New York Life Insurance · Improvement Company v. Munson · St Louis Iron Mountain Southern Railway Company v. May Taylor W · Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. Cox
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 410 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The requirement of the statute is substituted for the common-law rule which holds the employer to ordinary care to provide his employees a reasonably safe place in which, and reasonably safe appliances and machinery with which, to work. It is as definite and certain as is the common-law rule, and to hold that the duty imposed cannot be ascertained would be as unreasonable as it would be to declare that the common-law rule, which is ordinarily applied in personal injury actions brought by employees against employers is too indefinite to be enforced or complied with.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““[I]t is the duty of the judge to direct a verdict in favor of one of the parties when the testimony and all the inferences which the jury could justifiably drato therefrom would be insufficient to support a different finding.” (Emphasis added.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“prescribes no definite or ascertainable standard of duty”
2 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.