Stokes v. Saltonstall’s Empirical Analysis
38 U.S. 181 · 1839
Citation profile
66 federal appellate · 7 district · 103 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 224 later decisions (13 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2014 · most notably Patton v. Texas & Pacific Railway Co. (1901), Anne Sweeney v. William G Errving (1913)
66 federal appellate · 7 district · 103 state decisions — followed in 36 states
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
Relies on Harlow v. Humiston
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 224 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is certainly a sound principle that a contract to carry passengers differs from a contract to carry goods. For the goods the carrier is answerable, at all events, except the act of God and the public enemy. But although he does not warrant the safety of the passengers at all events, yet his undertaking and liability as to them go to this extent: that he or his agent, if, as in this case, he acts by agent, shall possess competent skill; and that, so far as human care- and foresight can go, he will transport them safely.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]o enable the plaintiff to sustain the action it is not necessary that he should have been thrown off the coach; it is sufficient if he were placed by the misconduct of the defendant, in such a situation as obliged him to adopt the alternative of a dangerous leap, or to remain at certain peril; if that position was occasioned by the fault of the defendant, the action may be supported. On the other hand, if the plaintiffs act resulted from a rash apprehension of danger, which did not exist, and the injury which he sustained is to be attributed to rashness and imprudence, he is not entitled to recover.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The proprietors of a stage coach do not warrant the safety of passengers in the character of common carriers, and they are not responsible for mere accidents to the persons of passengers, but only for want of care.””
2 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.