McKinney v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad’s Empirical Analysis
1958
Citation profile
172 federal appellate · 24 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 385 later decisions (13 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2017 · most notably Barrentine v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc. (1981), Alabama Power Co. v. Davis (1977)
172 federal appellate · 24 district · 3 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 decision below (from Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 45 U.S.C. § 153
Relies on Fishgold v. Sullivan Drydock & Repair Corp. · Aeronautical Industrial District Lodge 727 v. Campbell · Oakley v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad · Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Chicago River & Indiana 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 385 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“those changes and advancements in status that would necessarily have occurred simply by virtue of continued employment.”
22 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“as a veteran asserting special rights bestowed upon him in furtherance of the federal policy to protect those who have served in the Armed Forces”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) In the case of any person who is inducted into the Armed Forces of the United States under the Military Selective Service Act (or under any prior or subsequent corresponding law) for training and service and who leaves a position (other than a temporary position) in the employ of any employer in order to perform such training and service, and (1) receives a certificate described in section 9(a) of the Military Selective Service Act (relating to the satisfactory completion of military service), and (2) makes application for reemployment within ninety days after such person is relieved from such training and service or from hospitalization continuing after discharge for a period of not more than one year— (B) if such position was in the employ of a State, or political subdivision thereof, or a private employer, such person shall— (i) if still qualified to perform the duties of such position, be restored by such employer or the employer’s successor in interest to such position or to a position of like seniority, status, and pay; unless the employer’s circumstances have so changed as to make it impossible or unreasonable to do so. (b)(1) Any person who is restored to or employed in a position in accordance with the provisions of clause (A) or (B) of subsection (a) of this section shall be considered as having been on furlough or leave of absence during such person's period of training and service in the Armed Forces, shall be so restored or reemployed without loss of seniorit”
5 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.