Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 361 U.S. 78 - United States v. Seaboard Air Line Railroad

United States v. Seaboard Air Line Railroad’s Empirical Analysis

1959

Citation profile

101
cited by 101 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
4
states following
August 2022
most recently cited

39 federal appellate · 7 district · 19 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 101 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2022 · most notably Jeffrey Phillips v. Csx Transportation Incorporated Csx Transportation Incorporated & Procor Alberta Incorporated (1999), Erskine v. Consolidated Rail Corp. (1987)

39 federal appellate · 7 district · 19 state decisions

61019591960197019801990200020102020decided

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

reviewedUnited States v. Seaboard Air Line Railroad (from Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Applies 45 U.S.C. § 1

Relies on Territo v. United States · Magenau v. Aetna Freight Lines, Inc. · United States v. Erie Railroad · United States v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad · Louisville & Jeffersonville Bridge Co. v. United States

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

  1. “A moving locomotive with cars attached is without the [brake] provision of the act only when it is not a train; as where the operation is that of switching, classifying and assembling cars within railroad yards for the purpose of making up trains.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “which, though miniature when compared with main-line hauls, have the characteristics of the customary `train' movements and its attendant risks are to be included.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““It shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to the provisions of sections 11 to 16 of this title to haul, or permit to be hauled or used on its line, any car subject to the provisions of said sections not equipped with appliances provided for in said sections, to wit: All cars must be equipped with secure sill steps and efficient hand brakes; all cars requiring secure ladders and secure running boards shall be equipped with such ladders and running boards, and all cars having ladders shall also be equipped with secure handholds or grab irons on their roofs at the tops of such ladders: Provided, That in the loading and unloading of long commodities, requiring more than one car, the hand brakes may be omitted on all save one of the cars while they are thus combined for such purpose.” (Emphasis in original.)”
    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.