Schultz v. Pacific Railroad’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 18 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Sec. 4425. Damages for Injuries Resulting in Death in Certain Cases, .When and by Whom Recoverable. — Whenever any person shall die from any injury resulting from or occasioned by the negligence, unskillfulness or criminal intent of any officer, agent, servant or employe whilst running, conducting or managing any locomotive, car or train of cars, or of any master, pilot, engineer, agent or employe whilst running, conducting or managing any steamboat, or any of the machinery thereof, or of any driver of any stage coach or other public conveyance whilst in charge of the same as a driver; and when any passenger shall die from any injury resulting from or occasioned by any defect or insufficiency in any railroad or any part thereof, or in any locomotive or car, or in any steamboat, or the machinery thereof, or in any stage coach or other public conveyance, the corporation, individual or individuals, in whose employ any such officer, agent, servant, employ#, master, pilot, engineer or driver shall be at the time such injury-is committed, or who owns any such railroad locomotive, car, stage coach, or other public conveyance at the time any injury is received, resulting from or occasioned by any defect or insufficiency, unslcillfnlness, negligence or criminal intent above declared, shall forfeit and pay for every person or passenger so dying the sum of five thousand dollars, which may be sued for and recovered; First: by the husband or wife of the deceased, or second, If there be n”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Matz v. Chicago & A. R.

2. ““But the negligence, unskillfulness or criminal intent for which the employer is to be held liable in this manner, is expressly confined to some officer, agent, servant or employee, whilst running, conducting or managing a locomotive, car, or train of cars; and, of course, this part of the act can be applied to the negligence, unskillfulness or criminal intent of no other persons and to no other state of facts. “The framer of the act evidently undertook to carry two distinct propositions, concerning two classes of persons, and relating to two different and distinct grounds of liability, through one lengthy period; and, as he proceeded, found it necessary to infold and involve them in an alternate series of expressions, which are applicable separately to each in their order, at some expense of rhetorical clearness and precision, but winding up with one and the same conclusion as to both, the prescribed penalty of five thousand dollars damages. Consequently, when the liability of the employer is declared in reference to the first clause, it is the corporation or individual ‘in whose employ any such officer, agent, servant or employee,’ shall be at the time the injury is. committed, that is to be liable, and plainly in respect of the negligence, unskillfulness. or criminal intent of such officer, agent, servant or employee, whilst running, conducting, or managing the engines, cars, or trains; but when the other clause relating, to passengers only, becomes the subject of the sent”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. White v. Montoya