Baltimore & Ohio Railway Co. v. Jackson’s Empirical Analysis
1957
Citation profile
68 federal appellate · 3 district · 32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 141 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2009 · most notably United States v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. (1957), The Wilderness Society v. Rogers C. B. Morton, Secretary of the Interior (1973)
68 federal appellate · 3 district · 32 state decisions
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 Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company v. Daniel T. Jackson (from District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 45 U.S.C. § 1 · 45 U.S.C. § 51 (Federal Employers' Liability Act)
Relies on Urie v. Thompson · Norwegian Nitrogen Products Co. v. United States · Johnson v. Southern Pacific Co. · Napier v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad · Lilly v. Grand Trunk Western Railroad
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 141 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"We believe that the controlling factor is the nature of the employment of the vehicles in the railroad's service, that is the type of operation for which they are being used. . . . In light of the prime purpose of the Safety Appliance Acts, i.e., 'the protection of employees and others by requiring the use of safe equipment,' Lilly v. Grand Trunk Western R. Co. , 317 U.S. 481 , 486 [ 63 S.Ct. 347 , 351 , 87 L.Ed. 411 ] (1943), when the railroad uses this type of equipment [by pulling a hand car] — regardless of the label it places on the vehicles — the commands of the Acts must be obeyed."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]his is a matter of policy for the Congress to decide and it wrote into the Safety Appliance Acts that their coverage embrace 'all trains, locomotives, tenders, cars, and similar vehicles.' This plain language could not have been more all-inclusive.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“There is nothing to indicate that any particular kind of car was meant. Tested by context, subject matter and object, 'any car' meant all kinds of cars running on the rails, including locomotives.”
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.