Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 344 U.S. 293 - City of New York v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad

City of New York v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad’s Empirical Analysis

1953

Citation profile

1,245
cited by 1,245 later decisions
27
cited 27 times by the Supreme Court
25
states following
February 2025
most recently cited

233 federal appellate · 62 district · 127 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 1,245 later decisions (27 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2025 · most notably Armstrong v. Manzo (1965), Mennonite Board of Missions v. Adams (1983)

233 federal appellate · 62 district · 127 state decisions — followed in 25 states

409019531960197019801990200020102020decided

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

reviewedCity of New York v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. · Gardner v. State of New Jersey · Standard Oil Co. v. New Jersey · City of New York v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad

Cited together with Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. · Tulsa Professional Collection Services, Inc. v. Pope · Mennonite Board of Missions v. Adams · Schroeder v. City of New York · Reliable Electric Co. v. Olson Construction Co.

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 1,245 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Nor can the bar order against New York be sustained because of the city’s knowledge that reorganization of the railroad was taking place in the court. The argument is that such knowledge puts a duty on creditors to inquire for themselves about possible court orders limiting the time for filing claims. But even creditors who have knowledge of a reorganization have a right to assume that the statutory “reasonable notice” will be given them before their claims are forever barred.”
    38 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Notice by publication is a poor and sometimes a hopeless substitute for actual service of notice.”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “cause reasonable notice of the period by which claims may be filed”
    6 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.