Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 292 U.S. 589 - Fairport Er Co v. Meredith

Fairport Er Co v. Meredith’s Empirical Analysis

292 U.S. 589 · 1934

Citation profile

197
cited by 197 later decisions
33
cited 33 times by the Supreme Court
14
states following
September 2012
most recently cited

81 federal appellate · 9 district · 46 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 197 later decisions (33 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2012 · most notably Urie v. Thompson (1949), North Haven Board of Education v. Bell (1982)

81 federal appellate · 9 district · 46 state decisions — followed in 14 states

540193419401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 St Louis Iron Mountain Southern Railway Company v. May Taylor W · Schlemmer v. Buffalo, Rochester & Pittsburg Railway Co. · Moore v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. · C. W. Cornell v. F. E. Coyne · Patterson v. Bark Eudora E

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

  1. ““The Federal Safety Appliance Act, as we already have said and this court repeatedly has ruled, imposes absolute duties upon interstate railway carriers and thereby creates correlative rights in favor of such injured persons as come within its purview; but the right to enforce the liability which arises from the breach of duty is derived from the principles of the common law. The act does not affect the defense of contributory negligence, and, since the case comes here from a state court, the validity of that defense must be determined in accordance with applicable state law. Moore v. C. & O. Ry. Co., 291 U.S. 205, 214 , 54 S.Ct. 402 , 78 L.Ed. 755 et seq., and cases cited; Gilvary v. Cuyahoga Val ley Ry. Co., 292 U.S. 57 , 54 S.Ct. 573 , 78 L.Ed. 1123 .””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “It fairly may be said that the nature of the duty imposed by a statute and the benefits resulting from its performance usually determine what persons are entitled to invoke its protection.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “so obviously contribute to the safety of the traveler at crossings that it is hardly probable that Congress could have contemplated their inapplicability to that situation.”
    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.