Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 3 F.1d 775 - Coe & Milsom v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad

Coe & Milsom v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad’s Empirical Analysis

3 F. 775 · 1880

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
July 1917
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 1917

2 federal appellate · 1 district ·

401880189019001910decided

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 Vincent v. Chicago & Alton Railroad

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

  1. ““Ought a mandatory order to issue upon this preliminary application? Clearly not, unless the urgency of the case demands it, and the rights of the parties are free from reasonable doubt. The duty which complainant seeks by this suit to enforce is imposed and defined by the law, — -a duty of which the court has judicial knowledge. The injunction compelling its performance pending this controversy can do the defendant no harm, whereas a suspension of the accommodations would work inevitable and irreparable mischief to the complainants. The injunction prayed for will therefore be issued.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.