Myers v. Reading Co.’s Empirical Analysis
331 U.S. 477 · 1947
Citation profile
228 federal appellate · 6 district · 67 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 374 later decisions (24 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2018 · most notably The Boeing Company v. Daniel C. Shipman (1969), McAllister v. United States (1954)
228 federal appellate · 6 district · 67 state decisions — followed in 16 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedMyers v. Reading Co. (from Third Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 45 U.S.C. § 51 (Federal Employers' Liability Act)
Relies on Lavender v. Kurn · Tennant v. Peoria & Pekin Union Railway Co. · Brady v. Southern Railway Co. · Galloway v. United States · Pennsylvania Co v. Chamberlain
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 374 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Proof of an actual break or visible defect * * * is not a prerequisite to a finding that the statute has been violated. Where a jury finds that there is a violation, it will be sustained, if there is proof that the mechanism failed to work efficiently and properly * * *. The test in fact is the performance of the appliance.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the requirement is for probative facts capable of supporting, with reason, the conclusion expressed in the verdict,”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The inefficiency of the brake in this case may have consisted of its defective condition or its defective functional operation resulting, in either case, in its knocking from the brake platform an experienced railroad man attempting to tighten or set the brake in the customary manner described in his testimony. That testimony was not descriptive of precise mechanical defects in the structure of the brake. It was, however, simple and direct testimony from which a jury reasonably might infer the brake's defectiveness and its inefficiency in the sense necessary to establish a violation of the Safety Appliance Acts.”
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.