Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 372 U.S. 108 - Gallick v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad

Gallick v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad’s Empirical Analysis

1963

Citation profile

1,593
cited by 1,593 later decisions
25
cited 25 times by the Supreme Court
37
states following
April 2025
most recently cited

667 federal appellate · 96 district · 352 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 1,593 later decisions (25 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2025 · most notably The Boeing Company v. Daniel C. Shipman (1969), City of Los Angeles v. Heller (1986)

667 federal appellate · 96 district · 352 state decisions — followed in 37 states

41101963197019801990200020102020decided

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 Dalehite v. United States · Rogers v. Missouri Pacific Railroad · Lavender v. Kurn · Tennant v. Peoria & Pekin Union Railway Co. · Brady v. Southern Railway Co.

Cited together with Rogers v. Missouri Pacific Railroad · Atlantic & Gulf Stevedores, Inc. v. Ellerman Lines, Ltd. · Urie v. Thompson · Ferguson v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co. · Lavender v. Kurn

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 1,593 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Where there is a view of the case that makes the jury's answers to special interrogatories consistent, they must be resolved that way.”
    41 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[R]easonable foreseeability of harm is an essential ingredient of Federal Employers' Liability Act negligence.”
    16 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “it is the duty of the courts to attempt to harmonize the answers ... to reconcile the jury's findings, by exegesis, if necessary ... before we are free to disregard the jury's verdict and remand the case for a new trial.”
    10 later decisions 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.