Railway Co. v. Hackett’s Empirical Analysis
1894
Citation profile
2 district · 37 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently September 1972 · most notably Deck v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad (1905), Foster v. Pitts (1897)
2 district · 37 state decisions — followed in 12 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 Evanston v. Gunn · Garretzen v. Duenckel · Cleghorn v. . N.Y. Cen. H. River R.R. Co. · Brill v. Eddy · Weed v. . the Panama Railroad Company
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The question is, was Gallagher, at the time he fired the pistol shot, acting in the course of his employment as night watchman for the railway company? If he was, the company is liable in damages for any wrongful act of his in the course of his employment, resulting in injury to another, though he exceeded his authority as such night watchman. If the act was done by him in the service of the company, in the course of his employment, and injury resulted therefrom, the company is liable in damages resulting from the injury, if the act was wrongful or performed in such a negligent manner that its negligent performance caused the injury. Of course, if the act causing the injury was outside of the course of the servant’s employment, — disconnected with the service of the company, — then the company would not be liable. The fact that Gallagher had been appointed a deputy sheriff, to enable him to make arrests, because he was watchman for the railroad company, could not exempt the company from liability for his acts as such watchman. If the act had been committed in the discharge of, or in the endeavor to discharge, his duties as deputy sheriff, though wrongful, and in excess of his authority as deputy sheriff, the railroad company would not have been liable, though the deputy sheriff and his principal, the sheriff, might have been. But this case presents no such aspect. * * * ( 58 Ark. at 387 , 24 S.W. at 882 .) * * * The principal case relied upon by counsel for appellant, Tolches”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Meyers v. State
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.