Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 320 U.S. 476 - Brady v. Southern Railway Co.

Brady v. Southern Railway Co.’s Empirical Analysis

320 U.S. 476 · 1943

Citation profile

1,641
cited by 1,641 later decisions
53
cited 53 times by the Supreme Court
38
states following
November 2017
most recently cited

755 federal appellate · 60 district · 300 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 1,641 later decisions (53 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2017 · most notably Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. (1986), The Boeing Company v. Daniel C. Shipman (1969)

755 federal appellate · 60 district · 300 state decisions — followed in 38 states

343019431950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Story Parchment Co. v. Paterson Parchment Paper Co. · Gunning v. Cooley · Tiller v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad · Milwaukee and Saint Paul Railway Company v. Kellogg

Cited together with Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Tennant v. Peoria & Pekin Union Railway Co. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Bailey v. Central Vermont Railway, Inc. · Lavender v. Kurn

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 1,641 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “When the evidence is such that without weighing the credibility of the witnesses there can be but one reasonable conclusion as to the verdict, the court should determine the proceeding by non-suit, directed verdict or otherwise in accordance with the applicable practice without submission to the jury, or by judgment notwithstanding the verdict.”
    50 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The law is generally stated, as follows: “... in order to warrant a finding that negligence ..., is the proximate cause of an injury, it must appear that the injury was the natural and probable consequence of the negligence (sic) ... act, and that it ought to have been foreseen in the light of the attending circumstances.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Through the supremacy clause of the Constitution, Art. VI, we are charged with assuring [FELA's] authority in state courts. Only by a uniform federal rule ... may litigants under the federal act receive similar treatment in all states.”
    3 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.