Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 70 U.S. 107 - York Company v. Central Railroad

York Company v. Central Railroad’s Empirical Analysis

70 U.S. 107 · 1865

Citation profile

200
cited by 200 later decisions
26
cited 26 times by the Supreme Court
30
states following
June 2016
most recently cited

38 federal appellate · 6 district · 85 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 200 later decisions (26 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2016 · most notably Adams Express Co. v. Croninger (1913), Hart v. Pennsylvania Railroad (1884)

38 federal appellate · 6 district · 85 state decisions — followed in 30 states

5001865187018801890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Atwood v. Reliance Transportation 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 200 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “prescribe regulations to protect himself against imposition and fraud, and fix a rate of charges proportionate to the magnitude of. the risks he may have to encounter.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The füiimion carrier “is chargeable i'or all losses except such as may bo occasioned by the act of God or the public enemy. He insures against all accidents which result from human agency, although occurring without any fault or neglect upon his pari, and he cannot by any mere act of his own avoid the responsibility which the law thus imposes.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““The second position is answered by the fact that there is no evidence that a consideration was not given for the stipulation. The company, probably, had rates of charges proportioned to the risks they assumed from the nature of the goods carried, and the exception of losses by fire must necessarily have affected the compensation demanded.””
    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.