Lilly v. Grand Trunk Western Railroad’s Empirical Analysis
317 U.S. 481 · 1943
Citation profile
255 federal appellate · 19 district · 197 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 588 later decisions (25 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2020 · most notably Urie v. Thompson (1949), Kernan v. American Dredging Co. (1958)
255 federal appellate · 19 district · 197 state decisions — followed in 28 states
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 · Napier v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad · Caha v. United States · Baltimore Co v. Groeger
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 588 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A railroad carrier may use or allow to be used a locomotive or tender on its railroad line only when the locomotive or tender and its parts and appurtenances— (1) are in proper condition and safe to operate without unnecessary danger of personal injury; (2) have been inspected as required under this chapter and regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Transportation under this chapter; and (3) can withstand every test prescribed by the Secretary under this chapter.”
33 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“From various cases denying recovery under the Act, respondent attempts to extract a general rule that the Act covers only defects in construction or mechanical operation and affords no protection against the presence of dangerous objects or foreign matter. 7 18 But there is no warrant in the language of the Act for construing it so narrowly, or for denying the Commission power to remedy shortcomings, other than purely mechanical defects, which may make operation unsafe. The Act without limitation speaks of equipment `in proper condition and safe to operate * * * without unnecessary peril to life or limb.' Conditions other than mechanical imperfections can plainly render equipment unsafe to operate without unnecessary peril to life or limb. Whatever else may be said about the cases relied upon by respondent, they are sufficiently distinguishable in that they either did not involve or did not consider Rule 153 or any comparable regulation.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The use of a tender, upon whose top an employee must go in the course of his duties, which is covered with ice seems to us to involve 'unnecessary peril to life or limb'--enough so as to permit a jury to find that the Boiler Inspection Act has been violated”
4 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.