Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 281 U.S. 1 - Kansas City Southern Ry Co v. Guardian Trust Co

Kansas City Southern Ry Co v. Guardian Trust Co’s Empirical Analysis

281 U.S. 1 · 1930

Citation profile

231
cited by 231 later decisions
12
cited 12 times by the Supreme Court
13
states following
November 2012
most recently cited

83 federal appellate · 25 district · 31 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 231 later decisions (12 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2012 · most notably Alyeska Pipeline Service Company v. Wilderness Society (1975), Sprage v. Ticonic Nat Bank (1939)

83 federal appellate · 25 district · 31 state decisions — followed in 13 states

680193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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

reviewedGuardian Trust Co. v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. (from Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on In Re Peterson · In re Sanford Fork & Tool Co. · Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. Boyd · Newton v. Consolidated Gas 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 231 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Did the mandate of this court authorize the District Court to make any allowance in favor of the Trust Company on account of attorneys’ fees and other expenses to be taxed as costs between solicitor and client? The decree here affirmed required the ‘taxation of costs * * * under the principles, rules, and practice in equity.’ It undoubtedly covered ascertainment of amounts taxable between party and party. There was no specific reference to any additional allowance. The language used disclosed no intention to require more than the usual taxation.”
    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.