Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 84 U.S. 357 - Railroad Company v. Lockwood

Railroad Company v. Lockwood’s Empirical Analysis

84 U.S. 357 · 1873

Citation profile

496
cited by 496 later decisions
77
cited 77 times by the Supreme Court
43
states following
January 2026
most recently cited

84 federal appellate · 48 district · 181 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 496 later decisions (77 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2026 · most notably Erie Co v. Tompkins (1938), Mondou v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad (1912)

84 federal appellate · 48 district · 181 state decisions — followed in 43 states

10601873188018901900191019201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 Rodd v. Heartt · State v. O'Niel

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

  1. ““(1) That a common carrier cannot lawfully stipulate for exemption from responsibility, when such exemption is not just in the eye of the law. (2) That it is not just and reasonable, in the eye of the law, for a common carrier to stipulate for exemption from responsibility for the negligence of himself or his servants. (3) That these rules apply both to carriers of goods and carriers of passengers for hire, and with a special force to the latter. (4) That a drover traveling on a pass, such as was given in this case, for the purpose of taking care of his stock on the train, is a passenger for hire.””
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““It may be assumed in limine that the case was one of carriage for hire; for, though the pass certifies that the plaintiff was entitled to pass free, yet his passage was one of the mutual terms of the arrangement for carrying his cattle. The question is, therefore, distinctly raised, whether a railroad company carrying passengers for hire can lawfully stipulate not to be answerable for their own or their servants’ negligence in reference to such carriage.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “(a) common carrier may, undoubtedly, become a private carrier, or a bailee for hire, when, As a matter of accommodation or special engagement, he undertakes to carry something which it is not his business to carry.”
    3 later decisions 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.