Ames v. Union Pac. Ry. Co.’s Empirical Analysis
60 F. 966 · 1894
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 1939
8 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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 Wood v. Carpenter · Quincy Co v. Humphreys · United States Trust Co. v. Wabash Western Railway Co. · Express Company v. Railroad Company · St Joseph St Co v. Humphreys
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The receivers of a railroad system must report to and he governed by the ciicuit court sitting in the district of tiieir original appointment, in all matters relating' to their general management of the trust, their general accounting', and the general operation of the road within the circuit. T5ut the circuit courts sitting in other districts, where the same receivers were after-wards appointed, have jurisdiction to determine the validity and amount of claims of citizens thereof against the receivers and the corporation; and citizens of one district will not he required to go into another district to assert, their claims.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““It is well settled that the receivers of an insolvent railroad corporation, appointed by a court of chancery, to preserve its property and operate its railroads, do not stand in the shoes of the corporation. They are neither the representatives of the insolvent corporation, nor of its creditors or stockholders. They are the officers and representatives’ of the court, the hands of the court, in which it holds the property while it operates the railroads of the insolvent corporation for the benefit of those ultimately entitled to the property and the income.” Ames v. Railway Co., 60 Fed. 966 , 969.”
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.