Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 368 U.S. 35 - Still v. Norfolk & Western Railway Co.

Still v. Norfolk & Western Railway Co.’s Empirical Analysis

1961

Citation profile

79
cited by 79 later decisions
4
cited 4 times by the Supreme Court
7
states following
January 2018
most recently cited

35 federal appellate · 24 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 79 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2018 · most notably Goldberg v. Housing Auth. of City of Newark (1962), Kesler v. Department of Public Safety of Utah (1962)

35 federal appellate · 24 state decisions

170196119701980199020002010decided

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.

Relationships

Applies 45 U.S.C. § 51 (Federal Employers' Liability Act)

Relies on Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Reddish · Minneapolis Ry Co v. Rock · Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railroad v. Borum · St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. v. Brantley

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

  1. “employees who become such through other kinds of fraud, although possibly subject to termination through rescission of the contract of employment, must be recognized for purposes of suits under the”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “whether the injury complained of was caused by the railroad’s negligence “in whole or in part” by tending to show either that the worker was not injured by the railroad at all, if injured, the railroad was not responsible for the full extent of the injury, or that damages should be diminished by the jury for contributory negligence.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “substantial proof of a direct causal connection between the misrepresentations made at the time of hiring and the subsequent injury to the employee, before any defense of fraud can be considered as a bar to a recovery.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.