Herron v. Southern Pacific Co.’s Empirical Analysis
283 U.S. 91 · 1931
Citation profile
367 federal appellate · 27 district · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 551 later decisions (33 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2018 · most notably Hanna v. Plumer (1965), Estelle v. Williams (1976)
367 federal appellate · 27 district · 12 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedAtchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Spencer (from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Patton v. United States · Seaboard Air Line Railway v. Horton · Capital Traction Co. v. Hof · Central Vermont Railway Company v. Mary Theresa White L · Indianapolis and St Louis Railroad Company v. Horst
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 551 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In a trial by jury in a federal court, the judge is not a mere moderator, but is the governor of the trial for the purpose of assuring its proper conduct and of determining questions of law.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“shall, at all times, be left to the jury”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The controlling principle governing the decision of the present question is that, state laws cannot alter the essential character or function of a federal court. The function of the trial judge in a federal court is not in any sense a local matter, and state statutes which would interfere with the appropriate performance of that function are not binding upon the federal court under either the Conformity Act or the ‘Rules of Decision’ Act. Thus, a federal court is not subject to state regulations, whether found in constitutional provisions or in statutes, providing that the court shall not give an instruction to the jury unless reduced to writing, or that written instructions shall be taken by the jury in their retirement (Nudd v. Burrows, 91 U.S. 426 , 441, 442, 23 L.Ed. 286 ; Lincoln v. Power, 151 U.S. 436 , 442, 14 S. Ct. 387 , 38 L.Ed. 224 ); or that the court shall require the jury to answer special interrogatories in addition to their general verdict (Indianapolis & St. Louis R. Co. v. Horst, 93 U.S. 291 , 300, 23 L.Ed. 898 ); or that the court shall not express any opinion upon the facts (Vicksburg & Meridian R. Co. v. Putnam, 118 U.S. 545 , 553, 7 S.Ct. 1 , 30 L.Ed. 257 ); or charge the jury with regard to matters of fact (St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern R. Co. v. Vickers, 122 U.S. 360 , 363, 7 S.Ct. 1216 , 30 L.Ed. 1161 ) ; or shall not direct a verdict, where the evidence is such that a verdict the other way would be set aside (Barrett v. Virginian Railway Co., ”
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.