Mass Transit Administration v. Miller’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
4 district · 36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently March 2010 · most notably Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. v. Balbos (1992), Todd v. Mass Transit Administration (2003)
4 district · 36 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 Curley v. General Valet Service, Inc. · Kaufman v. Baltimore Transit Co. · Jones v. Baltimore Transit Co. · St. Michelle v. Catania · Smith v. Baltimore Transit 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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“‘[OJrdinary [negligence] is a question of fact to be determined by the jury; that before it can be determined as a matter of law that one has not been guilty of negligence, the truth of all the credible evidence tending to sustain the claim of negligence must be assumed and all favorable inferences of fact fairly deducible therefrom tending to establish negligence drawn;’”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A common carrier] owed the highest degree of care for the safety of its passengers. It was not an insurer of the safety of passengers but was bound only to employ the utmost care and diligence which human foresight can use. It also owed its passengers a duty to deliver them to their destination as expeditiously as possible, consistent with safety. However, the degree of care which is exacted of these carriers is subject to reasonable limitations. The care is not the utmost and highest, absolutely, but the highest which is consistent with the nature of their business, and there must be due regard to its necessary requirements.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“As Judge Davidson, for the Court of Special Appeals, aptly observed ... these cases are part of a long line of cases, too numerous to review here, which make it abundantly clear that once a passenger has planted both feet on a level portion of the floor of a vehicle sufficient in size to carry passengers in safety—be the place within or without the actual body of the car—he is in a place of safety and fairly on board. The duty is then his to see that he is not harmed by the normal movements of the car.”
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.