Minneapolis St Ry Co v. Goneau’s Empirical Analysis
269 U.S. 406 · 1926
Citation profile
43 federal appellate · 6 district · 37 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 108 later decisions (15 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 1994 · most notably Ferguson v. Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc. (1957), O'Donnell v. Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Railway Co. (1949)
43 federal appellate · 6 district · 37 state decisions
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 Davis v. Wolfe · Chicago Great Western Co v. Schendel · Goneau v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co. · Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co. v. Goneau
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 108 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“while the car was standing on a narrow bridge. The brakeman, while pulling the carrier iron in place, lost his balance and fell off the bridge. The contention was also made that submission to the jury under the Safety Appliance Act was not warranted because the defective car was motionless at the time and not in use and the brakeman was not engaged in any coupling operation or car movement. The United States Supreme Court said:”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“There was substantial evidence tending to show that the defective coupler was a proximate cause of the accident resulting in the injury to Goneau while he was engaged in making a coupling in the discharge of his duty, the case was rightly submitted to the jury under the Safety Appliance Act.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the defective condition of the carrier iron was merely a condition presenting the occasion for making the repairs, and not a proximate cause of the accident.”
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.