Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 279 U.S. 639 - Western v. Henderson

Western v. Henderson’s Empirical Analysis

279 U.S. 639 · 1929

Citation profile

424
cited by 424 later decisions
37
cited 37 times by the Supreme Court
25
states following
May 2025
most recently cited

85 federal appellate · 11 district · 233 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 424 later decisions (37 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2025 · most notably Leary v. United States (1969), Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez (1963)

85 federal appellate · 11 district · 233 state decisions — followed in 25 states

135019291930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 Mobile Jackson Kansas City Railroad Company v. J a Turnipseed · Alonzo Bailey v. State of Alabama · McFarland v. American Sugar Refining Co. · Manley v. State of Georgia

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 424 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““ ‘The only legal effect of this inference is to cast upon the railroad company the duty of producing some evidence to the contrary. When that is done the inference is at end, and the question of negligence is one for the jury upon all of the evidenced ” (Italics supplied.)”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “"Legislation declaring that proof of one fact or group of facts shall constitute prima facie evidence of an ultimate fact in issue is valid if there is a rational connection between what is proved and what is to be inferred. A prima facie presumption casts upon the person against whom it is applied the duty of going forward with his evidence on the particular point to which the presumption relates. A statute creating a presumption that is arbitrary or that operates to deny a fair opportunity to repel it violates the due process clause of the 14th amendment. Legislative fiat may not take the place of fact in the judicial determination of issues involving life, liberty or property. Manley v. Georgia, 279 U.S. 1 , ante, 575, 49 Sup. Ct. Rep. 215 , and cases cited. "The mere fact of collision between a railway train and a vehicle at a highway grade crossing furnishes no basis for any inference as to whether the accident was caused by negligence of the railway company or of the traveler on the highway *Page 639 or of both or without fault of anyone. Reasoning does not lead from the occurrence back to its cause."”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “"* * * a railroad company shall be liable for any damages done * * * by the running of the locomotives * * * unless the company shall make it appear that their agents have exercised * * * reasonable care * * * the presumption in all cases being against the company."”
    3 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.