Abercrombie v. Simmons’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 federal appellate · 4 district · 68 state decisions

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

1. ““A right of way, although commonly designated as an easement, is an interest in land of a special and exclusive nature, and of a high character. In speaking of its character, the Supreme Court of the United States said: ‘A railroad right of way is a very substantial thing. It is more than a mere right of passage. It is more than an easement. We discussed its character in New Mexico v. United States Trust Co., 172 U. S. 171 , 19 S. Ct. 128 , 43 L. Ed. 407 . We there said (page 183 [ 19 S. Ct. 133 ]) that if a railroad’s right of way was an easement it was “one having the attributes of the fee perpetuity and exclusive use and possession; also the remedies of the fee, and, like it, corporeal, not incorporeal, property.”’ Western Union Tel. Co. v. Penn Railroad Co., 195 U. S. 540 , 570, 25 S. Ct. 133 , 141, 49 L. Ed. 312 .””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Midland Valley R. v. Sutter · Roxana Petroleum Corp. v. Corn

2. ““We are not called upon to decide, nor do we intend to express an opinion, as to the rule applicable where lands are purchased or obtained without regard to the use to be made of them, or where there is nothing in the contract or conveyance indicating that they have been purchased for a right of way. Lands may be acquired by donation or by voluntary grant for aid in the building of railroads, and railroad companies may doubtless acquire lands for various uses in connection with railroad business that could not be taken by virtue of eminent domain, and as to these different rules may apply.” (p. 546.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Nott v. Beightel

3. ““ ‘But where there is an implied restriction, as is often the case in regard to the right of way, or the like, of a railroad company, the grant does not ordinarily vest a fee in the company, but vests such an estate, usually an easement, as is requisite to effect the purpose for which the property is required. Where the grant is of “surplus real estate,” as it is often called, that is of real estate not forming part of the railroad or its appendages, a deed effective to vest a fee in a natural person will vest that estate in a railroad company.’ (2 Ell. Rail. § 400.)” 71 Kan. at 542-43 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 31 Kan. App. 2d 1063 - Stone v. U.S.D. No. 222