Lillie v. Thompson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

113 federal appellate · 17 district · 116 state decisions

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

1. “alleged in effect that [the railroad] was aware of conditions which created a likelihood that a young woman performing the duties required of [the telegraph operator] would suffer just such an injury as was in fact inflicted upon her.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Dalka v. Wisconsin Central, Ltd. · Kline v. 1500 Massachusetts Avenue Apartment Corp.

2. “[T]he fact that 'the foreseeable danger was from intentional or criminal misconduct is irrelevant; respondent nonetheless had a duty to make reasonable provision against it.'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Goldberg v. Housing Auth. of City of Newark · Vance v. Consol. Rail Corp.

3. ““Plaintiff places great reliance upon the recent case of Lillie v. Thompson, Tr., 332 U. S. 459 , 68 S. Ct. 140, 141 , 92 L. Ed. 73 . In that case a per curiam opinion of the Supreme Court reversed the District Court and the Circuit Court of Appeals, 6 Cir., 162 F. (2d) 716, which had affirmed the decision of the District Court, dismissing the petition of plaintiff for failure to state a cause of action. The court said in part: “ ‘Petitioner’s allegations may be summarized as follows: Respondent required her, a 22 year old telegraph operator, to work alone between 11:30 p. m. and 7:30 a. m. in a one-room frame building situated in an isolated part of respondent’s railroad yards in Memphis. Though respondent had reason to know the yards were frequented by dangerous, characters, he failed to exercise reasonable care to light the building and its surroundings or to guard or patrol it in any way. Petitioner’s duties were to receive and deliver messages to men operating trains in the yard. In order for the trainmen to get the messages it was necessary for them to come to the building at irregular intervals throughout the night, and it was petitioner’s duty to admit them when they knocked. Because there were no windows in the building’s single door or on the side of the building in which the door was located, petitioner could identify persons seeking entrance only by unlocking and opening the door. About 1:30 a. m. on the night of her injury petitioner responded to a knock, thinkin”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 343 Ill. App. 221 - Tatham v. Wabash Railroad