Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 315 U.S. 1 - Duncan v. Thompson

Duncan v. Thompson’s Empirical Analysis

315 U.S. 1 · 1942

Citation profile

194
cited by 194 later decisions
21
cited 21 times by the Supreme Court
14
states following
August 2017
most recently cited

74 federal appellate · 19 district · 44 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 194 later decisions (21 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2017 · most notably Brooklyn Sav Bank v. O'Neil Dize (1945), Garrett v. Co (1942)

74 federal appellate · 19 district · 44 state decisions — followed in 14 states

66019421950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Employers' Liability Cases · Philadelphia Baltimore Washington Railroad Company v. Theodore a Schubert · Lindsay v. Acme Cement Plaster Co. · Carlson v. Northern Pacific Railway 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 194 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Any contract, rule, regulation, or device whatsoever, the purpose or intent of which shall be to enable any common carrier to exempt itself from any liability created by this chapter, shall to that extent be void”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “argues persuasively that Congress wanted Section 5 to have the full effect that its comprehensive phraseology implies.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “unless this condition were satisfied — and in view of Duncan’s straitened circumstances the probability of satisfaction would seem negligible — Duncan’s only means of enforcing such liabilities as should have been assumed by the respondent would be taken from him. Hence, the agreement, if valid, would effectively exempt the respondent from liability under the act no matter what the merits of Duncan’s claim.”
    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.