General Inv Co v. New York Cent R Co’s Empirical Analysis
271 U.S. 228 · 1926
Citation profile
72 federal appellate · 21 district · 28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 177 later decisions (15 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2024 · most notably Perkins v. Lukens Steel Co. (1940), Milwaukee County v. M. E. White Co. (1935)
72 federal appellate · 21 district · 28 state decisions — followed in 10 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 Fair v. Kohler Die & Specialty Co. · Venner v. Great Northern Railway Co. · Geneva Furniture Manufacturing Co. v. S. Karpen & Bros. · Illinois Central Railroad Company v. Wirt Adams
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 177 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““power to entertain the suit, consider the merits and render a binding decision thereon; and by merits we mean the various elements which enter into or qualify the plaintiff’s right to the relief sought. There may be jurisdiction and yet an absence of merits [citations omitted] as where the plaintiff seeks preventive relief against a threatened violation of law of which he has no right to complain . . . .” General Investment Co. v. New York Central R.R., Co., 271 U.S. 228 , 230, 46 S.Ct. 496 , 497, 70 L.Ed. 920 (1926).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““By jurisdiction we mean power to entertain the suit, consider the merits and render a binding decision thereon; and by merits we mean the various elements which enter into or qualify the plaintiff’s right to the relief sought. There may be jurisdiction and yet an absence of merits [citations omitted], as where the plaintiff seeks preventive relief against a threatened violation of law of which he has no right to complain, either because it will not injure him or because the right to invoke such relief is lodged exclusively in an agency charged with the duty of representing the public in the matter. Whether a plaintiff seeking such relief has the requisite standing is a question going to the merits, and its determination is an exercise of jurisdiction. [Citations omitted.] If it be resolved against him, the appropriate decree is a dismissal for want of merits, not for want of jurisdiction.” (Emphasis added.) General Investment Co. v. New York Central Railroad Co., 271 U.S. 228, 230-31 , 46 S.Ct. 496, 497 , 70 L.Ed. 920 (1926).”
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.