Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 79 U.S. 65 - Railroad Company v. Harris

Railroad Company v. Harris’s Empirical Analysis

79 U.S. 65 · 1870

Citation profile

290
cited by 290 later decisions
22
cited 22 times by the Supreme Court
23
states following
November 1958
most recently cited

48 federal appellate · 16 district · 61 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 290 later decisions (22 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 1958 · most notably Neirbo Co. v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp. (1939), Clark v. Barnard (1883)

48 federal appellate · 16 district · 61 state decisions — followed in 23 states

900187018801890190019101920193019401950decided

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 Bissell v. Michigan Southern & Northern Indiana Railroad Companies · Hepburn & Dundas v. Ellzey · Quimby v. . Vanderbilt · Cook v. Champlain 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 290 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““It cannot migrate, but may exercise its authority In a foreign territory upon such conditions as may be prescribed by tbe laws of the place. One of these conditions may be that it shall consent to be sued there. If it do business there, it will be presumed to have assented, and will be bound accordingly.””
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““And the said Baltimore & Ohio Railway Company are hereby authorized to exercise ihesame powers, rights, and privileges, and shall be subject to the same restrictions, in the construction and extension of said lateral road into and within said district, as they may exercise or be subject to under or by virtue of the said act of incorporation, in the extension and construed ion of any railroad within the state of Maryland, and shall he entitled to the same rights, benefits, and immunities in the use of said road, and in regard thereto, as are provided in said charter, except the right to construct any lateral road or roads in said district from said lateral road.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““A corporation, therefore, created by and organized under the laws of a particular state, and having its principal office there, is, under the constitution and laws, for the purpose of suing and being sued, a citizen of that state, possessing all the rights and having all the powers its charter confers. It cannot migrate nor change its residence without the consent, express or implied, of its state, but it may transact business wherever its charter allows, unless prohibited by local laws. Such has been for a long time the settled doctrine of this court. ‘It must dwell in the place of its creation, and cannot migrate to another sovereignty.”
    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.