Watts v. Norfolk & W. R.’s Empirical Analysis
1894
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 1 district · 53 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 59 later decisions — most recently February 1973 · most notably Uhl v. Ohio River Railroad (1902), 131 W. Va. 45 - Strouds Creek & Muddlety Railroad v. Herold (1947)
4 federal appellate · 1 district · 53 state decisions — followed in 10 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 Hay v. . the Cohoes Company · St. Peter v. . Denison · Hargreaves v. Kimberly · Kansas Central Railway Co. v. Allen · Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. v. Smith
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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`Neither a right of way conferred by grant nor one conferred by condemnation will give exemption from damages consequential upon the improper or negligent exercise of the rights, and not from the fair, proper, and reasonable exercise of it, for the reason that neither in making such grant nor in the assessment upon an inquisition are damages contemplated or included that are to be solely attributed to such misuse of the right.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.