Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 41 F.1d 559 - Little Rock & M. R. Co. v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co.

Little Rock & M. R. Co. v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co.’s Empirical Analysis

41 F. 559 · 1890

Citation profile

15
cited by 15 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
June 1915
most recently cited

6 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 1915

6 federal appellate ·

80189019001910decided

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 Memphis Co v. · Pulllman's Palace Car Co. v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co. · Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad v. Denver & New Orleans Railroad · Kentucky & I. Bridge Co. v. Louisville & N. R. Co.

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

  1. ““At common law, a carrier is not bound to carry, except on its own lines; and we think it quite clear that if he contracts to go beyond he may, in the absence of statutory regulations to the contrary, determine for himself what agencies he will employ. His contract is equivalent to an extension of his line for the purpose of the contract; and if he holds himself out as a carrier beyond the line, so that he may be required to carry in that way for all alike, he may nevertheless confine himself in carrying to the particular route he chooses to use. He puts himself in no worse position by extending his route with the help of others than he would occupy if the means of transportation employed were all his own. He certainly may select his own agencies and his own associates for doing his own work.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““The precise question in this case is, can the United States circuit court, in the exercise of its equity powers, require a railroad company engaged in interstate commerce traffic to enter into an agreement with another railroad company, engaged in like traffic, for a joint through routing and joint through rates; and, upon the refusal of the company to comply with such a requirement, may the court itself make such a contract for the parties?””
    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.