Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 332 U.S. 625 - Callen v. Pennsylvania Railroad

Callen v. Pennsylvania Railroad’s Empirical Analysis

332 U.S. 625 · 1948

Citation profile

543
cited by 543 later decisions
17
cited 17 times by the Supreme Court
21
states following
March 2019
most recently cited

182 federal appellate · 38 district · 120 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 543 later decisions (17 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2019 · most notably Wilko v. Swan (1953), Dice v. Akron, Canton & Youngstown Railroad (1952)

182 federal appellate · 38 district · 120 state decisions — followed in 21 states

135019481950196019701980199020002010decided

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

reviewedthe decision below (from Third Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Ricketts v. Pennsylvania R. · Callen v. Pennsylvania R.

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

  1. “One who attacks a settlement must bear the burden of showing that the contract he has made is tainted with invalidity, either by fraud practiced upon him or by a mutual mistake under which both parties acted.”
    21 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “all claims and demands which [plaintiff] can or may have against the said Pennsylvania Railroad Co. for or by reason of personal injuries sustained.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““Even if the issue of permanence (of plaintiff’s injuries) were resolved against the defendant, an issue still existed as to validity of the release since the defendant insists that it did not act from mistake as to the nature and extent of the injuries but entered into the release for the small consideration involved because, upon the evidence in its hands at the time, no liability was indicated. We think the defendant was entitled to argue these contentions to the jury and to have them submitted under proper instructions.””
    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.