The Philadelphia and Trenton Railroad Company v. James Stimpson’s Empirical Analysis
39 U.S. 448 · 1840
Citation profile
82 federal appellate · 13 district · 42 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 218 later decisions (30 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2013 · most notably Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan (1935), Japanese Immigrant Case (1903)
82 federal appellate · 13 district · 42 state decisions — followed in 19 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 Bingham v. Cabbot
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 218 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] party has no right to cross-examine any witness except as to facts and circumstances connected with the matters stated in his direct examination. If he wishes to examine him to other matters, he must do so by making the witness his own, and calling him as such in the subsequent progress of the cause.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It seems to us, tkerefore, tkat all courts ougkt to be, as indeed tkey generally are, invested with a large discretion on this subject, to prevent the-most mischievous consequences in the administration of justice to suitors; and we think that tke Circuit Courts possess this discretion in as ample a manner as otker judicial tribunals. We do not feel at liberty, therefore, to interfere with tke exercise of this discretion. * * * It is sufficient for us, however, tkat it was a matter of discretion and practice, in respect to which we possess no authority to revise tke decision of tke Circuit Court.”-”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Tucker v. Peiler“to prevent patentees being surprised, at the trial of the cause, by evidence of a nature which they could not be presumed to know, or be prepared to meet, and thereby to subject them either to most expensive delays, or to a loss of their cause.”
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.